Download - Technology Transfer and Federaly Funded R&D
Technology Transfer ofFederally Funded R&DPerspectives from a Forum
Mark Wang, Shari Pfleeger, David M.Adamson, Gabrielle Bloom, William Butz,Donna Fossum, Mihal Gross, Charles Kelley,Terrence Kelly, Aaron Kofner, Helga Rippen
RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute
R
C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S
RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute
Technology Transfer ofFederally Funded R&DPerspectives from a Forum
Mark Wang, Shari Pfleeger, David M.Adamson, Gabrielle Bloom, William Butz,Donna Fossum, Mihal Gross, Charles Kelley,Terrence Kelly, Aaron Kofner, Helga Rippen
Prepared for theOffice of Science and Technology Policy
R
C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S
The conference papers described in this report were prepared for the Office of Scienceand Technology Policy under Contract 9182731.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmakingthrough research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’spublications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors.
© Copyright 2003 RAND
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by anyelectronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or informationstorage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
ISBN: 0-8330-3359-X
Published 2003 by RAND1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution
Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected]
The RAND conference proceedings series makes it possible to publish conferencepapers and discussions quickly by forgoing formal review, editing, and reformatting.Proceedings may include materials as diverse as reproductions of briefing charts,talking points, or carefully written scientific papers. Citation and quotation ispermitted, but it is advisable to check with authors before citing or quoting because ofthe informal nature of the material.
iii
Preface
About This Document
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has been assigned tosubmit a report to the President of the United States on ways to improve the transfer to thecommercial sector of technologies developed with federal research and development (R&D)funding. In preparation for the PCAST report, RAND was asked to host a one-day forum ontechnology transfer. The forum was held on December 12, 2002, in RAND’s Washington, D.C.,office. The purpose of the forum was to elicit comments and discussion on technology transferissues, in particular to gain a variety of perspectives on best practices. Representatives from allrelevant organizations engaged in technology transfer were invited to share their ideas at thepublic forum or through written comments. Preregistration for the forum was conducted on-line;the registration form was directly linked to a brief questionnaire on technology transfer designedto elicit comments and to document experiences.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the forum. It presents an overview talk deliveredby RAND and sums up the main themes that emerged from the forum discussion. It alsoincorporates, as appendices, background material developed by RAND and provided to forumparticipants.
About the S&T Policy Institute
Originally created by the U.S. Congress in 1991 as the Critical Technologies Institute andrenamed in 1998, the Science and Technology Policy Institute is a federally funded research anddevelopment center sponsored by the National Science Foundation and managed by RAND. TheInstitute's mission is to help improve public policy by conducting objective, independentresearch and analysis on policy issues that involve science and technology. To this end, theInstitute
• Supports the Office of Science and Technology Policy and other Executive Branchagencies, offices, and councils
• Helps science and technology decisionmakers understand the likely consequences of theirdecisions and choose among alternative policies
iv
• Helps improve understanding in both the public and private sectors of the ways in whichscience and technology can better serve national objectives.
In carrying out its mission, the Institute consults broadly with representatives from privateindustry, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit institutions. Inquiries regardingthe Science and Technology Policy Institute may be directed to the following:
Helga RippenDirectorScience and Technology Policy InstituteRAND1200 South Hayes StreetArlington, Virginia [email protected]
v
Contents
Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii
Contents ...........................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... viiBackground........................................................................................................................... viiiKey Perspectives from the Technology Transfer Forum.........................................................xiDirections for Future Research............................................................................................. xiii
Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................xv
1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................1The PCAST Technology Transfer Forum ................................................................................1Background...............................................................................................................................2Organization of This Document ...............................................................................................3
2. Overview of Technology Transfer............................................................................................5What is Technology Transfer?..................................................................................................5The Federal R&D Enterprise....................................................................................................7Laws Governing Technology Transfer.....................................................................................9How Much Federal R&D Is Ripe for Technology Transfer?.................................................14Measurement Issues in Technology Transfer.........................................................................17Diffusing Technology Innovation and Commercializing Ideas..............................................20Lessons from Non-Federal Technology Transfer...................................................................22Other Forms of Technology Transfer.....................................................................................25Is There a Broader Role for the Federal Government in Technology Transfer?....................26
3. Themes from the PCAST Technology Transfer Forum .........................................................29Technology Transfer: Adjusting to the Policy Environment..................................................29General Views of Technology Transfer .................................................................................30Implementation of Technology Transfer................................................................................31Steps for the Future.................................................................................................................32Summary.................................................................................................................................32
Appendix A. Conference Agenda................................................................................................35
Appendix B. Summary of Technology Transfer Legislation ......................................................37
Appendix C. Measuring Technology Transfer............................................................................45
Appendix D. Toward Finding Best Practices..............................................................................57
Appendix E. On-Line Questionnaire and Compilation of Responses.........................................65
Appendix F. Excerpted Comments from the December 12, 2002, Forum..................................83
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................99
vii
Executive Summary
The United States has long been a leader in creating and developing new technologies thatadvance understanding of the world around us, solve complex problems, keep the nation’sindustries competitive, and improve society’s quality of life. By funding research, the federalgovernment has played a major role in helping to create these new technologies. At the sametime, the government has encouraged individuals and organizations to embrace and useknowledge that flows from federally funded research results to develop new products. Thisprocess is the essence of technology transfer. By understanding technology transfer, thegovernment can increase the benefits it accrues from its investment in new technologies.
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) was asked to examinethe nature of technology transfer resulting from federally funded research and development(R&D). Generally speaking, technology transfer involves generating innovative ideas throughthe sharing of relevant knowledge and through the sharing of facilities among federallaboratories, universities, industry, and government, and commercializing those ideas in the formof goods and services. Often, the process of technology transfer uses technology, expertise, andfacilities not only to solve a specific problem but also to facilitate its application to purposes notoriginally intended by the developing organization. In either case, these efforts can result incommercialization of a new product or process, or product and process improvements.
As part of its deliberations, PCAST asked RAND to host a one-day forum on the transfer oftechnologies developed with federal R&D funding. The forum, and in particular its openafternoon session for public comments, solicited input from participants on issues and bestpractices related to successful technology transfer. To attract a diverse set of participants with awide range of viewpoints, announcements for the forum were posted in the Federal Register anddistributed through e-mail to major groups involved in technology transfer, includinguniversities, federal laboratories, government, industry, and the venture capital community.Additionally, for interested individuals and organizations who could not attend the forum,RAND developed an on-line questionnaire to collect information on their experiences withtechnology transfer and to solicit their thoughts on identification of best practices and the barriersto implementing those best practices.
viii
Background
To help stimulate and structure discussion at the forum, RAND first presented an overview oftechnology transfer.
Overview of Technology Transfer
The overriding goal of any technology transfer is its successful adoption by a large majority ofconsumers who can use the technology. However, because every organization has its own goalsand culture, there is no single technology transfer process that fits all organizations andoccasions. Rather, there are several key steps or activities included in most technology transferprocesses, and an individual process is tailored to fit organizational needs.
Figure S.1 presents a schematic overview of the main activities involved in the process oftechnology transfer.
Figure S. 1—Schematic Overview of Technology Transfer Activities
This schematic view presents technology transfer in terms of its ultimate goal:commercialization, which involves taking intellectual property that derives from federallyfunded R&D at universities or federal laboratories, developing products, and thencommercializing them. This chain of activities and the expectation that technology transfer willlead to commercialization is aimed at improving the nation's economic well-being and quality oflife.
This framework is, of course, oversimplified. Innovation and insights on how to use old things innew ways, or how to use new ideas to solve old problems, may not be predictable or linear.
Federal Investment
Research & Development
Intellectual Property
Prototype
Product
Commercialization
• Federally Funded R&D
• Federal Laws Governing Tech Transfer
• Measures of Technology Transfer
• Process of Commercialization
• Perspectives on Technology Transfer
ix
There may be evolutionary advances to existing technologies, or revolutionary technologies thatdisplace or disrupt other technologies or existing ways of doing things. 1,2 There is alsoconsiderable iteration among the various activities. The process also typically involves a varietyof players, from transferors who create the technology and prove the concept, to those whoembed the technology in a useful product, service, tool, or practice, and finally to transfereeswho embrace it, further develop it, commercialize it, and ultimately use it.
Federal R&D Funding and Performers
To understand the earliest stages of technology transfer, it is useful to first understand the natureof federal investment in R&D. Annually, the U.S. government invests roughly $80 billion infederally funded research and development. Funding is dominated by the Department ofDefense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes theNational Institutes of Health (NIH). Together with the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Science Foundation(NSF), these top five agencies fund 95 percent of the annual federal investment in R&D.Federally funded R&D is performed by many types of institutions. The federal laboratoriestogether perform about 30 percent of the funded R&D, followed by universities which accountfor about 25 percent. Large and small businesses perform about 40 percent of federally fundedresearch and development.
Figure S.2 displays a breakdown of the federal investment by funding agency and by the entitiesperforming the research and development. The nonU.S. government operated federal laboratories(nonintramural laboratories) are represented by the top bar in the figure, which shows the DOEwas the most significant R&D funding agency in that area. The second bar displays thegovernment-owned government-operated (GOGO) federal labs (intramural labs). There, roughlyhalf the funding comes from the DoD. Funding at large businesses and small businesses alsolargely comes from the DoD. Funding at universities and colleges is predominantly from theHHS. Note that the only sizable portion of research funded by the NSF is performed atuniversities.
______________1 See Schumpter (1942) for a discussion of his concept of “creative destruction.”2 Christensen (1997).
x
Figure S.2—Federal R&D by Funding Agency and by Performer (FY2002 $B)
Federal Laws Governing Technology Transfer
Concerns about U.S. global competitiveness and a rising Japan in 1980 motivated Congress topass legislation intended to increase the movement of university knowledge and ideas intocommercial innovations and products. Prior to 1980, universities and other research institutionshad little incentive to commercialize their research, given that the patent rights belonged to thefederal funding agency. The federal policies that increase technology transfer to the privatesector are set forth in a collection of legislation and Executive Orders (EOs). These laws andEOs are primarily concerned with intellectual property rights but also govern other aspects of thelarger process of transferring technology created with federal funds. This collection of lawsincludes three pieces of legislation cumulatively known as the Bayh-Dole Act: the Universityand Small Business Patent Procedures Act, the Trademark Clarification Act, and ExecutiveOrder 12591. Another important piece of legislation, the Stevenson-Wydler Act, gives federalagencies responsibility for transferring intramural federal R&D results to the private sector. Twoimportant R&D agencies, NASA and the DOE, are covered by separate acts, but federal policyguidance has in effect brought them in line with Stevenson-Wydler.
Measures of Success
Because technology transfer involves so many different individuals and organizations and theirdiverse needs, it is difficult to define universally appropriate measures of transfer activity oreffectiveness. Indeed, it is unlikely that all federal laboratories, universities, and corporations
0 5 10 15 20 25
Universities &Colleges
Large business
Small business
Fed.Lab operated byUSG (intramural)
Federal Lab (non-intramural)
DODHHSNASADOENSFUSDADOCOther
FY 2002 ($B)
Federal R&D by Performer (FY2002)
xi
perform equally well with respect to any given measure of success. However, there has beenmeaningful work on defining metrics for and success in technology transfer. The InteragencyCommittee of Federal Technology Transfer, chaired by the Department of Commerce (DOC),has identified key mechanisms for successful transfer. These include licensing, CooperativeResearch and Development Agreements (CRADAs), technical assistance and consulting,reimbursable work for nonfederal partners, the use of facilities, exchange programs and collegialinterchange, publications, and conferences.
Beyond anecdotal information, practitioners and scholars of technology transfer have developedand used diverse metrics that are usefully described in seven categories: (1) science, technology,engineering, and medical school graduates taking jobs in the technology sector; (2) patents; (3)manufacturing innovations; (4) innovation networks; (5) Web hits to a science database; (6)transfer mechanisms; and (7) knowledge spillovers.
No particular metric is appropriate for all applications, nor is any particular analytical toolcorrect for answering every question. Yet, the principal findings from academic research oftechnology transfer, even from a field barely 20 years old, are already varied and useful. Theypoint in some instances to patterns worthy of close attention from practitioners of technologytransfer and from policymakers.
Key Perspectives from the Technology Transfer Forum
In order to identify important issues and best practices, a Technology Transfer Forum was held atRAND’s Washington, D.C., office on December 12, 2002, to raise as many issues andperspectives as possible on the topic of technology transfer. This forum included a roundtablediscussion featuring the participation of technology transfer experts representing researchuniversities, federal laboratories, the U.S. government, and various industries. A significantportion of the agenda was devoted to an open forum session at which attendees could makepublic comments. An open discussion period also provided an opportunity for additionalcomments. Many individuals who were unable to attend the forum could submit comments froman on-line questionnaire-and-comments form.
Several themes emerged from discussions at the forum and subsequent questionnairesubmissions. The discussion that follows represents RAND's summary of the main issues andperceptions that emerged at the forum. Note that these are perceptions only and not necessarilyfact, although the opinions expressed here may help to suggest where further research may bemost valuable.
xii
Technology Transfer: Adjusting to the Policy Environment
• Participants generally agreed that improving technology transfer involves a steep learningcurve. It has taken decades for organizations to learn how to operate successful transferprograms.
• In part because of the length of this learning curve, many forum panelists and attendeesexpressed the belief that technology transfer legislation should not be altered.
• There is a broad perception that the U.S. R&D landscape has changed in the past twodecades. For instance, the relative share of R&D funded by government is believed tohave shifted, altering the balance of basic versus applied research, and a short-term focusversus a long-term focus.
General Views of Technology Transfer
• Panelists and attendees noted that technology transfer should be viewed broadly. Aframework including federal investment, legislation, and commercialization seemeduseful.
• Many forum attendees discussed technology transfer within a global context. U.S.competitiveness and an increasingly global economy spurred these comments. Industrypartnerships with foreign research institutions was also a recurring point of discussion.
• Successful commercialization requires significantly more than a good idea or newtechnology. Developing a successful product requires, among other things, effectivemanagement, strategy, timing, and marketing. Coordinating among many organizations,some with widely varying missions, is a significant challenge.
Implementation of Technology Transfer
• Many attendees urged that recommendations to improve technology transfer, particularlyof implementation issues, be tailored to specific circumstances. The processes that workfor one industry or institution may not be applicable to another.
• Employees at the federal laboratories feel less incentive than their counterparts inuniversities or in industry to contribute to technology transfer. Lack of consulting time,royalties, and equity in startups were among the issues raised.
• The implementation of technology transfer is not uniform: Technology licensing officesoperate in diverse ways and do not apply Bayh-Dole uniformly.
• The increase in interdisciplinary and jointly sponsored research sometimes createsconfusion when ownership of intellectual property is not clear.
• Resources early in the technology transfer process are sought by all parties. Lack ofthese early resources hinders technology and market development, and hinders patent andlicensing processes.
xiii
Steps for the Future
• Many attendees recommended the development of training tools and education courseson technology transfer, including explanations of the use of various technology transfermechanisms.
• Homeland security issues were raised by some forum participants, in the context ofplanning for increased research and development and moving technologies into publicuse.
• Some attendees suggested examining how technology transfer is accomplished in othercountries. In the U.K., for example, many companies are invited to bring their R&Defforts into university settings where they can be nurtured by universities.
• Many attendees agreed that technology transfer, and the many issues that were raised,require further research to develop and improve metrics, especially those that measurebenefits to the end user.
Directions for Future Research
Based on the themes that emerged from the forum, RAND identified a range of areas in whichincreased knowledge might help improve federal technology transfer. In assessing thegovernment’s return on its technology investments, much of the current discussion has focusedon existing legislation and how it affects the success of technology transfer. However, no set ofbest practices has been proposed or adopted. Interesting observations and anecdotes give someclues as to what works well and give some basis for deliberations, but they do not constitute abody of systematic knowledge from which best practices can be derived. A clearer conceptualframework, supported by carefully conceived and collected data, is needed to support a morerigorous study of which transfer practices have been effective and in which contexts. Four issuesin particular stand out for future research:
• First, given the various ways in which technology can be transferred and the numerousorganizations involved in those transfers, what measures or combinations of measures arebest for evaluating, advancing, and monitoring progress of technology transfer? Forthose metrics or combinations of metrics, what goals would be reasonable?
• Second, using the metrics developed as described above, how do the various federalagencies compare in their ability to transfer technology, and which practices can andshould be emulated by others?
• Third, foreign universities and laboratories have active programs to license intellectualproperty and transfer technology. What might we learn from an examination of foreigntechnology transfer practices, and which ones might be profitably adopted by the UnitedStates?
• Fourth, what can we learn from the private-sector experience with technology transferand what might be applicable for federal-to-private technology transfer?
xv
Acknowledgments
This project was conducted by and documented by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at theRAND Science and Technology Policy Institute. It would not have been possible without thesupport and assistance from many individuals and organizations.
RAND provided analytic support to OSTP and PCAST. The guidance received was invaluable,particularly in preparation for the December 12, 2002, forum. From OSTP, we thank RichardRussell for making opening remarks at the forum; we thank Stan Sokul, and Amy Flatten fortheir help in defining this project and facilitating announcements. PCAST members WayneClough and Kathy Behrens led several teleconferences in developing the agenda, particularly theroundtable and panelist discussions. Along with Dr. Clough, Luis Proenza co-chaired theafternoon open forum and post-forum meeting with the RAND research team. We also thankMarjorie Burdetsky from Capital Meeting Planning for helping coordinate PCAST travel andother logistics.
The roundtable panelists and their respective organizations deserve special thanks forparticipating and sharing their expertise on technology transfer. The roundtable discussion andfirst-hand experiences were the highlight of the forum. The panel members included DavidBeier (Hogan and Hartson), Richard Brenner (Department of Agriculture), Lita Nelsen (MIT),Kate Phillips (COGR), Frank Pita (Semiconductor Research Corporation), Al Romig (SandiaNational Laboratories), and Juliana Shei (General Electric). Bruce Mehlman (Department ofCommerce) moderated the panel on short notice, and earlier had hosted a meeting with others atthe Department of Commerce including Benjamin Wu and Mark Boroush.
Although they are too numerous to list individually, we also thank those in attendance at theDecember 12 forum for their input during the forum’s open session and discussion. It is clearfrom the registration list that the forum attracted major stakeholders in technology transfer:government agencies, university technology licensing officers, academic scholars of technologytransfer, federally funded researchers, federal laboratories, big- and small- industry and federal-and industry-consortia, intellectual property attorneys, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs.Those who attended and many more who did not attend also submitted on-line and writtenstatements, many of which are incorporated in this document.
Properly producing a public document requires the review of many stakeholders on an issue asbroad as technology transfer. The authors thank Wayne Clough, Gib Marguth, and Kate Phillips
xvi
for their comments that helped improve this report. We also appreciate the time spent reviewingthe document by the roundtable panelists and others from the Federal Laboratory Consortium,the Association of University Technology Managers, and the Industrial Research Institute.Within RAND, we thank Parry Norling, Debra Knopman, Richard Silberglitt, and CarolineWagner for their reviews of various versions of this document.
Within RAND, the authors thank Darlette Gayle, Nora Wolverton, and Lisa Sheldone foradministrative and other support. Gail Kouril contributed to the literature search, members of theRAND survey research group crafted a questionnaire, Phyllis Gilmore helped get it on-line, andNancy DelFavero edited the final document. Irene Brahmakulam and Marschelle Bowler helpedcompile this document’s extensive bibliography. The authors remain responsible for any errorsor omissions.
1
1. Introduction
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will soon present areport to President Bush on ways to improve the transfer of technologies that are developed withfederal research and development (R&D) funding to the commercial sector. The federalgovernment makes a substantial annual investment in R&D—$80 billion in fiscal year (FY)2002 alone.3 This federal investment has explicit goals and is intended to produce both directand indirect results in the form of deliverables specified in individual contracts and grants. Butimplicit in the federal investment is an additional rationale: transferring the results of someportion of this R&D to nonfederal organizations, and in particular private ones, that can generateinnovations or spin-offs suitable for commercialization and trade. Ultimately, this federalinvestment is aimed at improving the U.S. economy, national security, and quality of life.
The PCAST Technology Transfer Forum
As part of the preparation for the PCAST report, and to shed some light on the topic oftechnology transfer, RAND was asked to host a one-day forum on the transfer of technologiesthat are developed with federal R&D funding. The forum, and in particular its open afternoonsession for public comments, solicited input from participants on issues and best practices relatedto successful technology transfer.
RAND hosted the Technology Transfer Forum on December 12, 2002, at its Washington, D.C.,office.4 To attract a diverse set of participants with a wide range of viewpoints, announcementsfor the forum were posted in the Federal Register and distributed through e-mail to major groupsinvolved in technology transfer, including universities, federal laboratories, government,industry, and the venture capital community. Preregistration for the forum was conducted on-line; the registration form was directly linked to a brief questionnaire on technology transferdesigned to elicit comments and to document experiences. Additionally, for interestedindividuals and organizations who could not attend the forum, RAND developed an on-line
______________3 This figure represents obligations. The Bush Administration's FY 2003 budget requested approximately $110 billion for
R&D. The R&D dollars are for the "conduct of R&D" and not total R&D. Total R&D includes the conduct of R&D as well asmoney spent on "R&D equipment" and "R&D facilities." Because the latter two categories are not relevant to technologytransfer, the dollars associated with those categories were not included in this report.
4 The forum’s agenda is in Appendix A.
2
questionnaire to collect information on their experiences with technology transfer and to solicittheir thoughts on best practices and the barriers to implementing those best practices.
Background
The United States has long been a leader in creating and developing new technologies thatadvance understanding of the world around us, solve complex problems, keep the nation’sindustries competitive, and improve society’s quality of life. By funding research, the federalgovernment has played a major role in helping to create these new technologies. At the sametime, the government has encouraged individuals and organizations to embrace and useknowledge that flows from federally funded research results to develop new products. How donew or improved technologies progress from creation (of an idea or piece of knowledge) to proofof concept (through a prototype, for example) to adoption (as a commercial product or practice)to diffusion of the technologies? This process is the essence of technology transfer. Byunderstanding technology transfer, the government can increase the benefits it accrues from itsinvestment in new technologies.
Many individuals and institutions are involved in technology transfer, and it is important tounderstand their role in a successful transfer of technology. Federally funded R&D is sponsoredby many government agencies, and it is conducted by a wide range of performers, includinguniversities, federal laboratories, and both large and small industries. Increasingly,interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research blurs the boundaries among traditionallyseparated fields. So, too, do joint appointments for faculty or federal employees, partnershipswith state and local agencies, venture capital and investment community development of newbusinesses, cooperative agreements with industry, and even international consortia to build theworld’s most ambitious research facilities.
Across these various groups, the incentives for rewarding technology transfer vary, andprocedures for protecting, licensing, and commercializing intellectual property are not alwaysclear. Indeed, the participants’ competing goals have raised perceptions of conflicts of interest,counterproductive behaviors, and even the possibility that foreign corporations derivedisproportionate benefit from U.S.-funded research.5 These factors, along with the differentcontexts in which technology transfer is done, make it challenging to set goals, define success,and measure the degree to which technology transfer meets its goals. Even when it can beassumed that technology transfer is operating well according to some measure, we must ask how
3
to improve the return on federal investment. Study of past practice suggests candidates forimplementing this improvement, ranging from offering various financial incentives to matchingresearchers with those individuals and organizations best suited to commercialize their ideas.
Facilitating technology transfer, understanding its role, and evaluating its impact all requiremeasurement. Thus, the difficult tasks of specifying appropriate metrics and collecting data onthe metrics are important and necessary. Difficulties arise to some degree in the context-dependence of the transfer process. The many ways that technology transfer occurs; the differentpersons and institutions involved in the transfer; the complex scientific, technological, andorganizational processes that produce it; and its varied manifestations in processes and productsare all contextual characteristics suggesting that a single, all-purpose metric of success isimpossible. Moreover, a single metric may be undesirable or impractical since the benefits canaccrue to diffuse populations and along diverse pathways, in some cases the benefits do notemerge until well after the technology is deployed.
Organization of This Document
Chapter 2 summarizes an overview of technology transfer presented by RAND to the forumparticipants. The purpose of the presentation was to describe the status of federally funded R&Dtechnology transfer and to highlight important issues for discussion. Chapter 3 presents the majorthemes that emerged from the discussions of the forum participants.
Appendix A presents the forum’s agenda. Appendix B summarizes legislation that governstechnology transfer. Appendix C provides additional background information and observationson measuring the success of technology transfer. Appendix D discusses specific issues related toidentifying best practices for transferring technology. Appendix E presents the on-linequestionnaire and results. Appendix F lists excerpted comments from the forum on variousaspects of technology transfer.
____________________________________________________________5 Marcus (1999) and Reed and Schriesheim (1996).
5
2. Overview of Technology Transfer
This chapter presents an overview of technology transfer and is based on a RAND presentationdelivered at the December 12, 2002, forum. By design, the subject is discussed broadly. Theintent was allow all stakeholders present at the forum the opportunity to recognize their role inthe process and discuss methods for facilitating improvements.
What is Technology Transfer?
The following are three definitions of technology transfer from major sources, each subtlydifferent, but with a similar message:
• The process of utilizing technology, expertise, know-how or facilities for a purpose notoriginally intended by the developing organization. Technology transfers can result incommercialization or product/process improvement.
— National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC)
• The process by which existing knowledge, facilities, or capabilities developed underfederal R&D funding are utilized to fulfill public and private needs.
—Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC)
• The formal transfer of new discoveries and innovations resulting from scientific researchconducted at universities and nonprofit research institutions to the commercial sector forpublic benefit.
—Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM)
The first statement from the NTTC includes the phrase “not originally intended by thedeveloping organization,” implying that the focus of technology transfer is for indirect benefit.
The second definition is from the Federal Laboratory Consortium. Note that the phrase from theNTTC definition regarding unintended purposes does not appear in the FLC statement. Indeedthe purpose of a lot of federal laboratory research and development is to accomplish somethingspecific, which may also potentially lead to technology transfer.
And the last statement from the Association of University Technology Managers focuses oncommercialization (i.e., bringing the benefits of federal research and development (R&D), andthe intellectual properties and technologies developed as a result of that research into newproducts).
6
Although the three statements have similarities, their variations suggest that technology transfermeans different things to different people. Therefore, this discussion treats the subject verybroadly, allowing for individual and organizational differences. Similarly, metrics fortechnology transfer success and best practice are left open for interpretation and discussion.6
Technology transfer is generally accepted to be beneficial, even if a specific definition may notnecessarily be agreed upon.
Persons speaking before the December forum were welcome to define technology transfer inwhatever term was most comfortable and most useful to them and their organization.
This discussion of technology transfer follows the schematic overview presented in Figure 2.1.It shows technology transfer progressing from federally funded research throughcommercialization--that is, taking intellectual property that derives from federally fundedresearch at universities or federal laboratories, developing products, and then selling them. Thischain of activities and the expectation that technology transfer will lead to commercialization isaimed at improving the nation's economic well-being and quality of life.
Figure 2.1— Schematic Overview of Technology Transfer Activities
This framework is, of course, oversimplified. Innovation and insights on how to use old things innew ways, or how to use new ideas to solve old problems, may not be predictable or linear.There may be evolutionary advances in existing technologies, or revolutionary technologies that
______________6 The bi-annual Department of Commerce report on Federal Laboratory technology transfer activities has a similar
approach, allowing different laboratories to describe their activities in individual presentations.
Federal Investment
Research & Development
Intellectual Property
Prototype
Product
Commercialization
• Federally Funded R&D
• Federal Laws Governing Tech Transfer
• Measures of Technology Transfer
• Process of Commercialization
• Perspectives on Technology Transfer
7
displace or disrupt other technologies or existing ways of doing things.7, 8 There is also a lot ofiteration between the various stages. The process also typically involves a variety of players,from transferors who create the technology and prove the concept, to those who embed thetechnology in a useful product, service, tool or practice, and finally to transferees who embraceit, further develop it, commercialize it, and ultimately use it.
For purposes of this overview, this framework enables discussion to focus on the different stagesof technology transfer and the transitions between each stage (represented by the arrows betweenthe boxes in Figure 2.1). There have been comments about a lack of clarity at the transitions, orvarious stages, and comments about incompatible incentives between the stages.
The framework in Figure 2.1 also serves as an outline of this chapter. The chapter begins with adiscussion of the federally funded R&D portfolio. It then presents the laws governingtechnology transfer, which focus largely on the transfer or management of intellectual property,ownership issues, patenting, and mechanisms for licensing. This discussion is followed by asummary of what we know about measures of technology transfer and the process ofcommercialization.
The Federal R&D Enterprise
First, we will review the federally funded R&D enterprise, noting that it involves many fundersand performers, as shown in Figure 2.2. Annually, the federal government invests roughly $80billion in federally funded research and development. As seen in the pie chart on the left of thefigure, funding is dominated by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Healthand Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Togetherwith the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy(DOE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), these top five funders account for 95percent of the annual federal investment in R&D.
______________7 Schumpter, Joseph (1942) concept of “creative destruction.”8 Christensen (1997).
8
Figure 2.2—Annual Federal R&D Obligations
Where does this money go? The pie chart on the right in the figure shows the $80 billion amountbroken out by research performers. The federal laboratories together account for about 30percent of the funded R&D, followed by universities which account for about 25 percent. Largeand small businesses receive about 40 percent of federal research and development.
Figure 2.3 displays this federal investment a different way. Here, funding for performers offederal research and development is displayed based on the funder. The nonU.S. governmentoperated labs (non-intramural labs) are represented by the top bar, which shows that the DOEwas the most significant R&D funding agency in that area.
The second bar displays the government-owned government-operated (GOGO) federal labs (i.e.,intramural labs). In those labs, roughly half of R&D funding is from the defense department.Funding for large and small business is also primarily from the DoD.
HHS30%
NASA9%
DOE8%
DOD42%
DOC1%
Other4%USDA
2%NSF4%
R&D Funders
Fed.Lab op.by
industrial firm2%
Fed.Lab op.by
university/ college
5%
Fed.Lab op.by non-
profit1%
Fed.Lab op.by USG
(intramural)23%
Foreign gov't0%
State/ Local U.S. gov't
0%
Small business
9%
Large business
29%
Non-profit/ non-
education6%
Universities & Colleges
25%
$80.6BTotal inFY2002
R&D Performers
9
Figure 2.3—Federal R&D by Funding Agency and by Performer (FY2002 $B)
Federal R&D funding at universities and colleges predominantly comes from the HHS. Notethat the only sizable portion of research funded by the NSF is performed at universities.
In summary, the funding profiles differ from performer to performer, and the perspectives ofeach institution regarding technology transfer may differ accordingly. Later in the chapter, wediscuss how these funding profiles may determine different expectations for technology transferdepending for different disciplines and research institutions.
Laws Governing Technology Transfer
A brief discussion of a few federal laws governing technology transfer is important tounderstanding the current mechanisms and processes for transfer.9 In 1980, concerns over U.S.global competitiveness and particularly the rising competition from Japan motivated Congress tofacilitate the commercialization of university research results and ideas. Prior to passage of theBayh-Dole Act, intellectual property from federally funded research was the property of thefederal agency funder. Universities had little incentive to commercialize research ideas andproduced only 250 patents a year.10 Capital markets also stayed on the sidelines, making itdifficult to obtain the necessary investments to develop prototypes and the companies to producecommercial products. Technology transfer legislation in 1980 changed all of this by givinguniversities and national laboratories patent ownership and incentives to commercialize federallyfunded research results. With patent ownership clarified, crucial capital investments were also
______________9 A more complete listing of legislation governing technology transfer can be found in Appendix B.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Universities &Colleges
Large business
Small business
Fed.Lab operated byUSG (intramural)
Federal Lab (non-intramural)
DODHHSNASADOENSFUSDADOCOther
FY 2002 ($B)
Federal R&D by Performer (FY2002)
10
more secure and viable because the clarified ownership reduced the risk of lost investments tooutsiders who might claim superior ownership rights.
Current federal technology transfer policies focus on the first three stages of the technologytransfer framework shown in figure 2.4: investment, R&D, and intellectual property rights.Intellectual property rights in particular are at the center of federal policy. The federalgovernment's principal means for promoting technology transfer is to grant intellectual propertyrights to non-federal performers of federally funded R&D, such as universities, private firms, andother entities. With property rights, performers of R&D are free to commercialize the results oftheir R&D activities and reap the economic benefits. Further, the United States may also benefitfrom the increased quality of life, the increased national security, and other less tangible benefits.
Figure 2.4—Federal Laws Drive the Early Stages of the Technology Transfer Process
The actors listed in the bottom half of Figure 2.4, including the private-sector organizationsinvolved with prototyping and commercializing new products, are not directly within theimmediate purview of federal technology transfer laws. Corporations and consumers involvedwith the stages of prototyping, development, and commercialization are affected by federal taxlaws and regulations which influence technology transfer. For instance, most universities andmany research institutions are constituted as nonprofit entities. The tax code governs the kinds ofresearch in which tax-exempt organizations usually engage, as well as the terms of licensingagreements with for-profit corporations.11 Also, bond financing is a large part of university
____________________________________________________________10 Press and Washburn (2000), p.39.11 See IRS Publication 557 (Rev. July 2001), Cat. No. 46573C, “Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization,” p. 24, for
discussion of nonprofit “scientific organizations.”
Federal Investment
Research & Development
Intellectual Property
Prototype
Product
Commercialization
Federal GovernmentFunders
PerformersLegislation
Private SectorInventors
EntrepreneursVenture Capitalists
IndustryConsumers
11
construction, adding other constraints.12 Property and income taxes and various federalregulations indirectly affect many corporations and consumers involved with technologytransfer, but they are out of the scope of this report.
Figure 2.5—Laws Facilitating Technology Transfer
A collection of laws (shown in Figure 2.5) governs the transition between the top half and thebottom half of the framework shown in Figure 2.4. The major legislation governing federaltechnology transfer is the Bayh-Dole Act. What is typically referred to as “Bayh-Dole” isactually the cumulative provisions of at least two major laws, their subsequent amendments, andone Executive Order (EO). The major laws and EO, discussed in more detail below, are TheUniversity and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, the Trademark Clarification Actof 1984, and Executive Order 12591 (1987). The intent of these laws and this EO is to enablenon-federal performers of R&D to commercialize inventions developed with federal funds.
The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980
The original Bayh-Dole legislation was adopted in 1980. Officially titled The University andSmall Business Patent Procedures Act (USBPPA), this law permits small businesses and somenonprofit organizations, including universities, to retain patent rights to inventions created withfederal R&D funds. This act also grants R&D performers the ability to claim intellectualproperty rights in nonpatentable data, such as trade secrets generated with federal funds.
______________12 See IRS Revenue Procedure 97-14, 1997-5 I.R.B. 20, Section 5 on “Tax-Exempt Bonds; Private Activity Bonds.”
• “Bayh-Dole” Act– University & Small Business Patent Procedures Act (1980)– Trademark Clarification Act (1984)– Executive Order 12591 (1987)
• “Stevenson-Wydler” Act– Technology Innovation Act (1980)– Federal Technology Transfer Act (1986)– National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act (1989)
• Other– (NASA) National Aeronautics and Space Act (1958)– (DoE) Atomic Energy Act (1954), Non-Nuclear Energy Research Act
(1974)
12
Trademark Clarification Act of 1984
The Trademark Clarification Act (TCA) of 1984 amended the original Bayh-Dole Act to extendthe force of its technology transfer provisions to federal laboratories that are owned by thefederal government but operated under contract by nonfederal entities (i.e., government-ownedcontractor-operated, or GOCOs). Many of these GOCOs are also federally funded research anddevelopment centers (FFRDCs). This act permits the operators of these federal laboratories topatent and/or license technologies that the laboratories develop. It also permits the contractorsoperating these laboratories to retain royalties generated from their licenses to support additionalR&D at their laboratories. However, this activity is sometimes constrained by other legislation.For example, although all of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) GOCO laboratories aretechnically subject to the provisions of Bayh-Dole via the TCA, the DOE has effectively broughtits technology transfer activities under the provisions of the Stevenson-Wydler TechnologyInnovation Act (see below) using the provisions of the management contracts governing theoperations of each of these laboratories.
Executive Order 12591 (1987)
The Executive Order 12591, “Facilitating Access to Science and Technology,” extends theprovisions of the Bayh-Dole Act to large businesses conducting R&D with federal funds.Although this EO was not formally confirmed until 1987, its substance was authorizedinformally by President Reagan in 1983. This EO also changes the authority of federallaboratories to license their inventions, which is contained in Stevenson-Wydler as amended (seebelow), from permissive to mandatory.
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980
The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 governs technologies resulting fromR&D conducted by federal employees at federally operated laboratories (in other words, R&Dperformed intramurally). This act also gives federal agencies a continuing responsibility fortransferring technology to non-federal entities. It requires each agency to establish an Office ofResearch and Technology Applications (ORTA) to promote the transfer of technology to non-federal entities. As amended in 1986, Stevenson-Wydler allows federally operated laboratoriesto license their inventions and to keep all of the royalties generated from the licenses aftersharing at least 15 percent of the royalties with the federal employee(s)-inventor(s). BecauseStevenson-Wydler does not address the actual mechanics of patenting and licensing, these
13
activities in federally operated laboratories are governed by the provisions of Bayh-Dole asamended. In addition, the intramural R&D activities of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) are not covered by the provisionsof Stevenson-Wydler. Instead, they are governed by the provisions of the Space Act (forNASA), the Atomic Energy Commission Act (for DOE’s nuclear-technology transfer), and theFederal Non-nuclear Energy Research Act (for DOE’s non-nuclear technology transfer).
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (often referred to simply as the “Space Act”),which established NASA in that year, has been amended multiple times in the ensuing years.Since its passage, the provisions of the Space Act that govern technology transfer have beenlargely overtaken by the provisions of Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler. The Space Act stillgoverns NASA’s technology transfer duties with respect to technology generated from R&Dconducted directly by NASA employees (i.e., NASA’s intramural R&D). With respect to theselatter R&D activities, the Space Act requires that the NASA Administrator take title to alltechnologies invented by NASA employees. However, it gives the Administrator wide latitudeto waive NASA’s rights to these technologies if doing so better serves the interests of the UnitedStates.
Atomic Energy Act (1954) and Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974
Like NASA, DOE had legal authorities in place prior to the enactment of Bayh-Dole andStevenson-Wydler that continue to govern the technology transfer activities related to inventionsresulting from DOE’s intramural R&D. Similar to the situation with NASA, the Non-NuclearEnergy Research and Development Act of 1974 (NNERA) requires that the Secretary of Energytake title to all non-nuclear technologies invented by DOE employees, but it gives the Secretarywide latitude to waive DOE’s rights to these technologies if doing so better serves the interests ofthe United States. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) also requires the Secretary of Energy to taketitle to all nuclear technologies invented by DOE employees, but it also gives the Secretary theright to waive DOE’s rights to these technologies.
As can be clearly seen by Figure 2.6, among all the legislation governing federal technologytransfer, the Bayh-Dole Act governs the vast majority of federally funded R&D.
14
Figure 2.6— Bayh-Dole Governs Technology Transfer of Most Federal R&D Funds
An Ambiguity in Federal Policy
All federal technology transfer provisions are based on the institutional status of the partyperforming the federally funded R&D.13 The provisions assume that performers of R&D areaffiliated with only a single R&D institution. However, joint appointments between institutionsare becoming increasingly common. For example, a federally funded researcher on the facultyof a university may also belong to the research staff at a federal laboratory. Consequently,technologies created by such researchers are “claimable” by two different types of R&Dinstitutions that are governed by two different federal technology transfer provisions. Becausethe royalties resulting from the licensing of such technologies can be substantial, institutions areunlikely to forgo them willingly. In these situations, legal complications over intellectualproperty rights could ensue.
How Much Federal R&D Is Ripe for Technology Transfer?
Not all federal R&D is equally likely to produce transferable technologies. Federally fundedR&D is divided into three categories: basic research, applied research, and development. The
______________13Foreign governments also carry out a small percentage of federal R&D–less than 1 percent. Foreign government
performers are not covered under any of the federal technology transfer provisions.
Bayh-Dole77%
Stevenson-Wydler
20%
Space Act2%
Energy Acts1%
Total $80.6BFY 2002
15
latter includes both defense and non-defense development. Of these categories, applied researchand non-defense development carry the highest expectations for technology transfer.
Figure 2.7—Less than Half of Federally Funded R&D Is Applied Research
Basic research may have lower expectations for technology transfer. This is not to suggest thatthere is no technology transfer from basic research, but that the study of basic phenomenaimplies that the benefits are going to accrue over a much longer term, and perhaps be moreindirect than the benefits that accrue from applied research or development.
And aside from dual-use technologies, defense research and development is really not intendedfor technology transfer. In fact, some weapons facilities are designed to keep information frombeing disseminated. Those facilities are prohibited from sharing technologies or intellectualproperty.
The highest expectations for technology transfer, therefore, apply to only about 40 percent of thefederally funded R&D portfolio--in applied research and other non-defense development (seeFigure 2.7). Again, this is not to imply that basic research has no expectations ofcommercialization. Indeed, basic research may stimulate applied research, which may inspiremore basic research. Indeed, the distinctions between basic versus applied research are moreshades of gray than they are black and white.
Keeping these qualifications in mind, Figure 2.8 displays the total $80.6 billion research anddevelopment portfolio by the various funding agencies and categories of funding. DoDdominates in funding; however, most of that funding is in defense-related or weapon systemsdevelopment. Basic research and applied research and other development is also displayed foreach funder.
• Basic Research• Development: Weapon and
defense-related systems• Applied Research and other
Development
30%30%
40%
16
Figure 2.8— Civilian Agencies Have the Most Funding in R&D That Is Ripe for Technology Transfer
The area most ripe for technology transfer, applied research, is led by HHS and the civilianagencies. Earlier, we noted that most HHS funding goes to universities, and this may suggest aconnection among universities, the life sciences, and the expectations for technology transfer.
The NSF does an annual survey on research and development expenditures. Figure 2.9categorizes the 40 percent slice of R&D (see Figure 2.7) that includes applied research (shown as“Research Disciplines” constituting 68 percent) and other development (constituting theremaining 32 percent. Life sciences dominates in terms of research disciplines, followed byengineering.
Figure 2.9—Life Sciences and Engineering Are Leading Disciplines for Technology Transfer
We should note that absolute percentages of funding may be somewhat misleading because theamount of laboratory equipment or instrumentation needed to conduct social science researchmay differ significantly from the amount required for biotechnology research. However, this
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
DOD HHS NASA DOE NSF USDA DOC Other
Weapon and Defense SystemsDevelopment
Basic Research
Applied Research and OtherDevelopment
FY02$B
Federal R&D by Funder$80.6B Total in FY2002
• Research Disciplines (68%)– Life Sciences 30%– Engineering 16%– Mathematics and Computer Sciences 5%– Environmental Science 5%– Physical Sciences 4%– Psychology 3%– Social Sciences 3%– Other Applied Research 2%
• Other Development (32%)
NSF annual survey of R&D expenditures
17
gives our readers some idea of how the disciplines are broken out by funding and by technologytransfer expectations.
Measurement Issues in Technology Transfer
The scope of this project did not allow for an independent measure of technology transfer;however, we have done an extensive literature search of what is known on technology transfer.The following discussion summarizes what we know about measures of success in technologytransfer. For a further discussion of technology transfer measurement and analysis, seeAppendix C.
Whether one believes that technology transfer is successful or is going well likely depends on theindividual’s role within the technology transfer framework. Figure 2.10 lists the specific rolesof the various groups involved in technology transfer and their respective measures ofeffectiveness. For example, R&D performers, such as inventors, generally are driven by apersonal need to champion their invention and to see its usefulness come to fruition, whereasinstitutions that conduct research may want to license the product of that research and generaterevenues from it.
Figure 2.10—Measures of Success Depend on One’s Role in Technology Transfer
Industry has an interesting perspective on measures of success. Commercial industries obviouslywant to profit and to gain a greater market share, but they also want access to knowledge andexpertise. And large firms have different expectations for technology transfer than do smallfirms. The research literature suggests that large firms that have an in-house R&D organizationgenerally want more generic technology than expertise, whereas small firms want something thatis much closer to end products and commercialization.
• R&D Performers:– Inventors: usefulness of technology– Institutions: patents, licenses, revenue
• Entrepreneurs/Venture Capitalists: Growth of companies, wealth creation• Legislation: Benefits to nation’s economic well-being and competitiveness• Consumers: New or improved products• Industry: Profit, market share, access to knowledge and expertise, sharing risks,
leveraging and complementing R&D portfolios– Large firms: generic technologies and early-stage expertise– Small firms: products and processes closer to commercialization
18
Quite a few studies on technology transfer have been done, particularly over the past couple ofdecades since the original Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler Acts were passed. In the past 20-plus years, academic researchers have been studying the effects of Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler, and they generally conclude that these are landmark acts, even if they had to besubsequently amended.
The Interagency Committee on Federal Technology Transfer has identified seven mechanismsfor technology transfer, which are listed in Figure 2.11. These mechanisms collectively are abarometer of the vitality of technology transfer. Not all of them are easily measured, however.Table 2.1 lists and defines five general ways in which technology transfer is measured.
Figure 2.11—The Seven Mechanisms for Technology Transfer
The Interagency Committee on Federal Technology Transfer chaired by theCommerce Department has identified these mechanisms of technologytransfer
1. Licensing2. Cooperative research and development agreements3. Technical assistance4. Reimbursable work for nonfederal partners5. Use of facilities6. Exchange programs7. Collegial interchange, publications, and conferences
19
Table 2.1—The Five General Ways of Measuring Technology Transfer
These five general metrics are unlikely to capture the entire picture of technology transfer, butthat is to be expected given that technology transfer is understood to be so broad, so long-term,and so indirect in many cases. These general metrics are informative, nonetheless.
Figure 2.12 summarizes some interesting aspects of what past studies on technology transferhave found. For instance, there have been many studies on the effects of universities as a catalystfor innovation to industry. Geographic proximity to universities is important but not for alltechnologies, just those that are mentioned. So, whereas geographic proximity to universitiesenhances transfer of medical technology research, interestingly enough, it does not appear toenhance the transfer of information technology. Holding all things constant, geographicproximity to universities matters most to these disciplines that are listed in Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.12 —A Summary of Some Findings from Previous Academic Study of Technology Transfer
The last item in Figure 2.12 suggests that most firms might like to have an in-house R&Dorganization, even if it is not productive by in-house standards, in that in-house organizations are
• Geographic proximity to universities stimulates corporatepatent/licensing activity (in particular, drugs, medical tech, optics,nuclear technologies).
• University research generates more innovative activity in nearby smallfirms than in nearby large firms.
• University research influences firms’ marketed innovations more than itinfluences their patents.
• Firms that conduct R&D in house are more likely to adopt innovativetechnologies that are developed elsewhere.
DefinitionsMetrics
Estimated statistical relationships ofinnovation activity
Knowledge Spillovers
Number of sign-in visitors, meetings,documents sent/requested, exchanges
Transfer Mechanisms
Page hits, average time spent on page,number of downloads
Web Hits to Science Database
Number of innovations applied for bythe Small Business Association
Manufacturing Innovations
Number applied for/granted,basic/applied research, country,affiliation
Patents, Licenses, Revenue
20
best capable of evaluating external technologies, understanding the framework within theirfirms’ business goals, and incorporating them into new or improved products.
Diffusing Technology Innovation and Commercializing Ideas
The commonly accepted goal of technology transfer is successful commercialization. Figure2.13 displays a curve that is similar to one shown in most marketing textbooks that discuss thechallenge of technology diffusion and adoption.
After technology has been transferred and commercialized, the first group to embrace thattechnology is the innovators. The innovators constitute a small portion (just 2.5 percent) of thepossible audience for the technology. Innovators tend to use the technology because it is newand interesting, even when there may be little evidence of its effectiveness.
Once the technology's usefulness has been demonstrated, a larger group, known as earlyadopters, is the next to use it. Moore (1991) notes that technology transfer most often never getsbeyond this stage--a small fraction of the audience uses the new technology, but a larger portionis wary of change and never embraces the new technology.
Successful marketing encourages the next group, the early majority, to try the technology anduse it frequently. The encouragement often comes in the form of evidence that appeals to thisgroup: reports of successful use by others, trial runs at similar organizations, and data fromvendors to support claims about the technology’s benefits.
After the early majority has accepted the technology, the late majority will consider joining thegroup of transferees. That is, when the technology has a proven track record in organizationalsituations that are similar to the potential adopter’s, the late majority will join in.
The last group to use the technology, the laggards, is the most resistant to change. Its membersfeel that they are doing well enough with existing techniques and feel no pressure to change.Laggards are usually convinced to modify their tools and practices only when rules, standards,and regulations are imposed upon them.
In other words, successful commercialization requires defining a market that takes the productbeyond the innovators and early adopters.
21
Figure 2.13— Commercialization Depends on Successful Technology Adoption
For example, while it might be possible to find a few customers interested in buying a $2,000DVD player, unless the firm manufacturing that DVD player identifies a specific market and aplan to reach the majority of consumers within the mark, its new product is unlikely to succeed.Commercialization requires identifying one’s market, developing a strategy to reach that market,and having the product adopted by the majority.
The commercialization framework we describe here implies that many factors influencesuccessful commercialization beyond just technology, and a number of those factors are listed inFigure 2.14. Many venture capitalists say that the most important part of commercialization isidentifying the market, and they also cite the adage, “There is more money than there are goodideas.” For investors, if an entrepreneur can identify a market where there is a profit to be made,they will take care of creating the technology later. For those involved with R&D funding andperforming, however, technology transfer starts with the technologies. Thus, the technologiesmay not be accompanied by the suite of things that need to happen for successfulcommercialization, including a well-formed business plan.
• Need strategy to getbeyond early adopters.
• Successfulcommercializationmeans getting to themajority.
MajorHurdle
Innovators2.5%
EarlyAdopters
13.5%
EarlyMajority
34%
LateMajority
34%
Laggards16%
Percentageof Adopters
Adopter Distribution CategoriesBased on Innovativeness
(Everett Rogers)
22
Figure 2.14—Factors That Influence Successful Adoption
Universities that are cited for being leaders in technology innovation and entrepreneurshipgenerally are cited for more than the technologies they develop. Leading universities do manyother things to help ideas reach their commercial promise, including developing “incubators” orfacilitating the interaction among scientists, investors, the business community, and industry.
Lessons from Non-Federal Technology Transfer
This document focuses on technology transfer from federally funded R&D. However, it is usefulto investigate how ideas and technology are developed in the absence of federal funds as a wayof understanding whether alternative models can help improve the transfer of federally fundedR&D.14
A look at the history of the transfer of non–federally funded R&D shows that merely having abetter technology does not guarantee success. For example, Betamax video technology wasgenerally thought to display a better, clearer picture than VHS, but VHS easily captured themarket. The adoption of the “lesser” technology suggests that economic factors are at least asimportant as quality. Indeed, history is replete with legends of the lone inventor, toiling in agarage to develop a prototype gadget and persevering until an investor recognizes the gadget’svalue and helps the inventor to succeed and find a market for his or her invention. Similarly, anew idea can linger for years before someone recognizes its application to a particular problem,such as when a chemical compound, ineffective for one ailment, is later recognized as aneffective treatment for another.
• Strategy to overcome obstacles and to conquer the mainstreammarket
• Decision to patent before or after identifying a licensee (patentfees)
• Negotiated licensing terms (up-front payment, equity,exclusivity, royalties)
• Realization that most startups require several stages ofinvestment
• Business plan identifies challengers, competitors, barriers tomarket entry
• Milestones correspond to proof of technology, managementteam, market, profitability
23
In many models of successful technology transfer, the venture capital and investmentcommunities play an important role. They recognize that having a good technology is not all ittakes. The stakes are high for investors who support risky, early-stage ventures that may notyield immediate returns; the federal government must often invest the preliminary research anddevelopment well before the private sector would risk investing in them (e.g., sending a man tothe moon or creating a new energy source). Investors often see startup-company development ashaving distinct stages, each involving different organizations with specific milestones thatdistinguish one stage from another. These milestones may be activities such as proof oftechnology, proof of a management team,15 proof of a market, and proof of profitability.
A good business plan may be the key deciding factor for some technology transfers becauseinvestors who must distinguish a good plan from a bad one and decide which to invest in maymake the difference between success and failure of a new technology.16 Beyond describing thenew technology, a good business plan must identify challengers, competitors, and barriers tomarket entry, or demonstrate a sustainable competitive advantage, and identify a strategy forovercoming those challenges. It must also identify specific development and businessmilestones and market potential. Within the technology diffusion framework described earlier inthis chapter, a business plan must also specify how to make the technology attractive to earlyadopters, to majority markets, and to laggards. Indeed, developing a successful plan to crossfrom early adopters to mainstream markets may be the most difficult aspect of successfulcommercialization.17 Thus, the lesson to be learned is that technology adoption must beaccompanied by a well-developed business plan, many aspects of which may be separate fromthe merits of the technology itself.
Understanding these issues also benefits the technology licensing offices of research institutions.Having greater knowledge of the market potential of technologies aids in the decision whether topatent intellectual property before or after identifying a licensee, or even to suggest the licenseepay patent fees and/or royalties. While some universities generate significant revenues fromlicense royalties, most are trying to break even from patenting costs and try to avoid patentingtechnologies that may not be licensed.18 For this reason, most institutions measure the percentage
____________________________________________________________14 Libicki et al. (2000).15 For many venture capitalists, the quality of the management team is as important as the quality of the technology. Given
a choice between a mediocre technology and first-rate management team versus a first-rate technology and a mediocremanagement team, many venture capitalists would select the first-rate team for its ability to execute efficiently and responsively.
16 Stevens and Burley (1997) quantify the risk associated with technology development, and why much technology transferfails to yield a commercialized product.
17 Moore and McKenna (1991).18 Association of University Technology Managers (FY2000), and Benowitz (1995).
24
of patents awarded to gauge this initial return on effort and investments. Other institutionsrequire a senior administrator, such as the provost, to approve each patent application. Withpatent costs roughly $75,000 and rising, this level of university investment for speculativetechnologies is similar to "angel" funding and thus benefits from the same entrepreneurialanalysis of market, startup management, and business plan potentials as the investor.19
Enhanced knowledge and information can aid the partnership among the licensing office,entrepreneurs, and early-stage investors by aligning expectations and adding a measure of realityto negotiations of up-front payments, license exclusivity, and royalty terms. Clearing thesenegotiating hurdles increases the probability that a licensing deal will succeed, a first step formany startup companies.
Beyond initial investments is the need for sustained funding, which often includes several stagesof venture capital involvement. Each stage requires additional negotiation and poses the addedrisk that a venture may fail before successful technology adoption. Investment companies areunder increasing pressure from their contributors to maintain positive and short-term returns; thepressures are similar to those from stockholders of public corporations who want immediatereturns on their investments. This pressure for immediate results is multiplied if the technologyis unproven or the market is speculative. There is a growing wariness among early investors thatthere will be no one to “grab the baton” as development progresses.20 This funding gap creates abottleneck of potentially valuable technologies that are increasingly unable to proceed along thepath of commercialization and technology transfer.21
One way to address this bottleneck is to reduce investment risk and uncertainty. The riskreduction can be achieved in many ways, some of which have already been noted: betterinformation to define the market, a clear business plan, well-defined milestones, understandingcompetitors, and a quality management team. Although the commercial sector is usuallycomfortable with these activities, the academic and research communities may not be.Universities and federal laboratories can encourage commercialization by developing world-class technologies and also by supporting entrepreneurial activities such as those describedearlier. To support these efforts, studies of innovation at universities frequently evaluate aninstitution’s ability to attract and organize industry-sponsored research projects, interface with
______________19 A measure being reviewed by the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property titled "Strategic Plan and Fee Legislation for the USPTO" would significantly increase thecost of patent prosecution of patent and trademark office fees in the United States.
20 Private communication, Victor Hwang, chief operating officer, Larta.org (2002).21 Price and Sobocinski (2001).
25
state and regional economic development activities, operate university-affiliated businessincubators, and involve the university in early-stage capitalization of spin-off companies.22
Other Forms of Technology Transfer
This document focuses on U.S. federally funded research within a framework leading tocommercialization, which is commonly associated with technology transfer. Discussions oftechnology transfer typically are conducted under the assumption that federally funded R&D istransferred to the private sector. The technology transfer process often happens in reverse,however, as technologies move from the private sector to the government. For the government,adopting and using existing commercial technologies avoids duplicating development efforts andsaves valuable federal funds. However, it is not easy to identify or to be a “smart buyer” ofexisting commercial technologies that are applicable to government requirements, given the vastnumbers of manufacturers and products and the effort required to evaluate applicability. Thesheer numbers of proposals and competing businesses may quickly become unmanageable.
Several Department of Defense agencies enlist the assistance of the venture capital community inreverse transfer. For example, to raise awareness of commercial technologies that may aidhomeland security in bioterrorism, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)has identified venture firms that specialize in biotechnology. Similarly, the DoD Office of ForceTransformation has worked with Tech Coast Angels, a network of individual investors inSouthern California, on a “Technology Finder” model that combines early-stage technologieswith funding startups after DoD relevance is confirmed. In both cases, venture capitalists’ skillsin attracting, evaluating, and developing innovative technologies benefit the government. Whenthere is demonstrated government interest in a particular technology, the risk to the investor andto the entrepreneur decreases within a mutually beneficial partnership.
To cite another example, the CIA provides financial support for a venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel,which specializes in finding and developing companies that produce technology of interest to theintelligence community.23 Although In-Q-Tel is a private-sector firm, it is government createdand serves the needs of government.
______________22 Tornatzky et al., 2002.23 From the In-Q-Tel Web site, www.in-q-tel.com/about/history.html: “In 1998, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)
identified technology as a top strategic priority . . . The leadership of the Directorate of Science and Technology set out a radicalplan to create a new venture that would help increase the Agency's access to private sector innovation. In the tradition of the‘skunk works’ of the early Cold War era, the DCI called on private sector industry executives to create and launch this newventure. A hybrid between public and private-sector business models, In-Q-Tel was chartered in February 1999 under theleadership of the DCI and the Directorate of Science and Technology and with the support of the U.S. Congress.”
26
Foreign universities and laboratories also have active programs to license intellectual propertyand transfer technology.24 Some countries have even tried to base their governance ofintellectual property and technology transfer by emulating provisions from the Bayh-Dole Act.25
U.S. competitiveness vís a vís foreign countries deserves continued study, particularly tounderstand those factors that industry weighs before entering partnerships with research firms.Ease of technology transfer is one of many factors large industry weighs before establishing aresearch partnership with any of the world’s research universities and laboratories.
Among the forms of technology transfer not discussed in this report are state and localtechnology transfer activities (e.g., agricultural transfer programs involving county extensionagents or land-grant universities). In addition, some PCAST members mentioned that the“donation” of technologies from the private sector to universities was an increasing form oftechnology transfer. The military also includes within its definition of outgoing technologytransfer the sale of military equipment to allied foreign governments. While graduation of U.S.university students to the U.S. workforce is frequently discussed as being a form of technologytransfer, the movement of graduates to foreign countries is not. Although we acknowledge theseforms of technology transfer, they are out of the scope of this report.
Is There a Broader Role for the Federal Government in Technology Transfer?
As we mentioned earlier, technology transfer may be very indirect, long-term, and complex.Definitions of technology transfer vary among different stakeholders, even when there isagreement that technology transfer is beneficial and should be improved. Fundamentally, atechnology is an idea, practice, or object resulting from research as well as a tool that embodiesthe technology. The goal of technology transfer is to move a potentially useful idea, practice, orobject into an environment where it can improve a product or process in some way, such as byspeeding delivery, enhancing quality, reducing cost, or by improving an expected outcome insome way.
Technology transfer involves six elements that combine to form an overall framework: federalfunding, R&D, assignment of intellectual property rights, prototyping, product development, andcommercialization. The actual technology transfer process used in a given situation uses all of
______________24 Mowery (1988).25 For a discussion of Canadian technology transfer, see “Public Investments in University Research: Reaping the Benefits,”
(1999).
27
these elements, often iteratively. The process is derived from the framework and is based onorganization’s goals, needs, and culture.
The Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler Acts are regarded as being examples of successfullegislation, but the experiences of technology transfer suggest that improvements may be made.Successful commercialization involves crossing many hurdles, and the federal laws andprovisions may only directly affect part of the technology transfer process.
At present, federal policies directly address only the first three stages of the technology transferframework: federal investment, research and development, and intellectual property. The latterthree element—prototyping, product development, and commercialization—are not formallyaddressed by federal policy, but they are nonetheless critical in assessing the ultimate success offederal-to-private technology transfer. The private-sector experience with technology transfersuggests that good planning, addressing all aspects of transfer through commercialization, cansignificantly enhance the chances of success.
29
3. Themes from the PCAST Technology Transfer Forum
Several themes emerged from discussions at the PCAST Technology Transfer Forum onDecember 12, 2002, as well as from submissions from individuals and organizations involvedwith technology transfer. The following quoted material represents the views and opinions ofthose participating in the form; further research is required to discern which remarks may relateto systemic rather than substantive issues, and to separate fact from personal perceptions.Individual perceptions are important, nonetheless, as indicators of where issues may exist andwhere successful technology transfer may be impacted. The following summaries and excerptedquotations are representative of the main issues and themes that emerged at the forum.
Technology Transfer: Adjusting to the Policy Environment
• Participants generally agreed that improving technology transfer involves a steep learningcurve. It has taken decades for organizations to learn how to operate successful transferprograms. Although technology transfer has improved notably since the landmark acts of the1980s, the partnership between technology developers (particularly universities) andpotential industry commercializers is by no means routine or straightforward. Theexperience of successful organizations suggests that there are payoffs to investing in andbuilding the types of partnerships that facilitate technology transfer.
“It took the universities about 10-12 years to try to make it work. That meant you had todevelop skilled professionals in the business. You also had to develop consistent policieswithin the universities.”“Technology transfer from national labs or universities to industry is not always easy. Goodnews. Once we reach an agreement working with universities or national labs, usually those[agreements] come out [to be] very good.”
• While acknowledging the learning curve, many forum panelists and attendees believe thetechnology transfer legislation should not be altered.
“Bayh-Dole is working. The statistics all show it. You can make it work within the currentframework. The mantra of ‘if it ain't broke, don't fix it’ certainly applies. We are generallyasking that one not go into the Bayh-Dole and twiddle with it like the tax code.”
• There is a broad perception that the U.S. R&D landscape has changed in the past twodecades. The relative share of R&D funded by government is believed to have shifted,altering the balance of basic versus applied research, and a short-term focus versus a long-term one. Interestingly, there is disagreement over whether industry and government funded
30
more in the past than they do now.26 Much corporate innovation has shifted from in-housedevelopment to partnerships with other companies.
“ When universities, particularly research-intensive universities, start getting too involved inthe commercialization process, there is that danger of changing the direction of research, ofconflict of interest, and of all sorts of, Who are you? What's your proper role?”
General Views of Technology Transfer
• Panelists and attendees noted that technology transfer should be viewed broadly. Aframework including federal investment, legislation, and commercialization seemed useful.
“Focus on the entire technology transfer system holistically, not just one element in isolation,and to consult extensively with federal labs, universities, and industries.”
• Many discussed technology transfer within a global context. U.S. competitiveness and anincreasingly global economy spurred these comments. Industry partnerships with foreignresearch institutions was also a recurring point of discussion.
“We need to better understand the unprecedented global competition for research andinnovators. The wealth of nations is changing. While prior centuries were dominated bynations with superior industrial or agricultural capabilities, the Information Age is going toreward new competencies and strengths. Innovative capacity is now clearly the key driver offuture national prosperity.”
• Successful commercialization requires significantly more than a good idea or newtechnology. Developing a successful product requires, among other things, effectivemanagement, strategy, timing, and marketing. Coordination among many organizations,some with widely varying missions, is a significant challenge.
“Preconditions to generate successful technology transfer include existing and increasingmonetary support for research and development, a solid government patent policy, viableuniversity technology transfer policies, an educated faculty that is aware and interested intechnology transfer, availability of discretionary funds for those faculty to protect theirintellectual property, and finally, the continued involvement of the inventor in the technologytransfer process.”“Industries take risks that the universities or national labs don't take, or don't have to take.Those [risks] are related to development, scale up, and investment in capital. That means ifthe commercial product is not successful, those investments are wasted. We have to worryabout labor relations, to manage working capital, cash flow, and manage inventory. Thoseare the things that universities and national labs don't have to worry about.”
______________26The NSF Survey of Industrial Research and Development (www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/indus/start.htm) suggests that industry
currently funds $200 billion or nearly 60 percent of the total R&D in the United States. The R&D breakdown for industry—73percent for development, 20 percent for applied research, and 7 percent for basic research—may contribute to perceptions that thegovernment may lead industry in funding R&D because industry has been relying more and more on universities (and somenational labs) to do their basic research.
31
Implementation of Technology Transfer
• Many forum attendees urged that the discussions, particularly of implementation issues, betailored to specific circumstances. The diversity of the federal laboratories was a repeatedexample of attendees not wanting generalized discussions. For instance, processes that workfor the pharmaceutical industry may not be applicable to agricultural products.
“Make important discriminating points between agencies, type of funding, and type ofsubject matter. It's a giant mistake to have a report about technology transfer that comparesand pushes together NIH and federal labs. You should just deal with them as differentsubjects, and have different recommendations for each one.”
• Employees at the federal laboratories feel less incentive than their counterparts in universitiesor industry to contribute to technology transfer. Lack of consulting time, royalties, andequity in startups were among the issues raised. Many joked about the “entrepreneurialleave” program — to be an entrepreneur, they must leave. There are also perceiveddifferences at government-operated versus contractor-operated federal laboratories. Theseperceptions may hinder technology transfer since involvement of the inventor, particularlyearly in the development phase, is widely considered to be critical to the successfulcommercialization of new ideas.
“Conflict of interest, and the [inspector generals (IGs)] come to the GOCOs as well. And thelast thing you want to do is get skewered on the front pages of The Washington Post orsomething like that. In fact, what throttles even consulting at these laboratories are notions ofconflict of interest. And the reason [is] that people can't own equity; even though ourlaboratory owns equity in companies, individuals do not, nor can they. So therefore, if it's afederal laboratory, GOCO or GOGO or anything else that you might be able to think of, theconflict of interest issue is one that is very, very real, and is an ultimate wet blanket on many,many of these things. ”
• The implementation of technology transfer is not uniform. Technology licensing offices atresearch universities and federal laboratories pursue varying approaches to deciding whetherto patent a technology and how to structure licensing or royalty agreements. Some of thesedifferences follow from inherent differences in the research--for example, divergentdevelopment, investment, and returns from new pharmaceutical products versus agriculturalcommodities. Other differences stem from diversity across federal laboratories anduniversity research programs. Another important change is the increase in interdisciplinaryand jointly sponsored research. Such arrangements can create confusion when ownership ofintellectual property is not clear. For example, a federal employee may have a jointappointment at a university, working on research jointly sponsored by the federalgovernment and industry.
“Complexity is the enemy of execution. To the extent that you have problems in theimplementation of technology transfer, most of them are either a function of misalignmentbetween agency mission, or people who don't understand what they are doing because thelaws and regulations are too complicated.”
32
“Misapplication of Bayh-Dole may adversely affect innovation and technology transfer, atleast in some technologies, and may lead to conflict between universities and industry.Companies, who sponsor research with your own private dollars, have the expectation ofbeing able to use and commercialize those research results productively.”
• Resources early in the technology transfer process are sought by all parties. For inventors,resources are needed to develop the technology. Investors also need resources to explore anddevelop the business potential of new ideas. Universities must weigh potential benefitsagainst the initiation of an expensive and time-consuming patent application process. If apatent is obtained, licensing terms that require up-front cash payments may also present ahurdle.
“Venture capital seems to have dried up. We do preferentially license to small businesses.They are risk takers. They need that capital influx typically to move things forward. Andthat has had an impact this past year.”
Steps for the Future
• Many forum participants recommended training tools and education courses on technologytransfer including explanations of the use of various technology transfer mechanisms.
• Homeland security issues were raised by some forum participants, in the context of planningfor increased research and development and moving technologies into public use.
“The biggest challenge of the federal government today is how do you do technology transferin a new cabinet level department? What kind of biodefense industry or counterterrorismmeasure industry do we want or deserve in the United States?”“The federal laboratories are very good at building ones and twos and tens of a kind. Theyare not good at building thousands of things.”
• Some participants suggested examining how technology transfer is accomplished in othercountries. In the U.K., for example, the R&D departments of some companies are broughtwithin universities and nurtured by them.
• Many agreed that technology transfer, and the many issues it raises, require further researchto develop and improve technology transfer metrics. While participants were encouraged todefine successful technology transfer in terms that were most useful to them, this alsoprevented direct or specific comparisons.
Summary
PCAST Technology Transfer Forum participants at the represented a wide range of perspectives,including those of university technology-transfer officers, industry leaders, and federal R&Dmanagers and lab personnel. There was general agreement that technology transfer processesand "best practices" vary widely in different contexts. The input from the forum provided
33
important, albeit anecdotal, evidence that will help further understanding of which technologytransfer practices work best and in which contexts.
Due to time constraints in planning the forum, not all perspectives on technology transfer wereevenly represented. For example, few researchers and scholars from the disciplines that studytechnology transfer were able to attend. A deeper study of technology transfer processes wouldrequire greater participation from all stakeholders. More comprehensive stakeholder input willalso help ground more rigorous analysis of technology transfer and a more empirically basedapproach to understanding technology transfer best practices.
35
Appendix A. Conference Agenda
PCAST Technology Transfer ForumThursday, December 12, 2002
RAND Washington, D.C., Office1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA
Room 4204
Agenda
0900-0915 Welcome and Introductions Wayne Clough, Georgia TechRichard Russell, Office ofScience and Technology Policy
0915 - 1000 Overview of Technology Transfer Mark Wang, RAND
1000 – 1015 Break
1015 – 1200 Technology Transfer Roundtable Bruce Mehlman, U.S.Department of Commerce(moderator)
Panelists:David Beier, Hogan and HartsonRichard Brenner, AgriculturalResearch ServiceLita Nelsen, MITKate Phillips, Council onGovernmental RelationsFrank Pita, SemiconductorResearch Corp.Al Romig, Sandia National LabsJuliana Shei, GE
1200 – 1300 Lunch
1300 – 1600 Open Forum
Preregistered speakers will beallowed 5 minutes. Walk-in speakerswill follow.
1600 Adjourn
37
Appendix B. Summary of Technology Transfer Legislation
This appendix provides a compendium of relevant technology transfer legislation, listed inchronological order. Table B.1 relates the legislation to federally funded R&D.
The Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862
• Promoted education and innovation in science and technology by forming a system ofpublicly supported research universities.
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (PL 85-568)
• Granted NASA broad discretion in the performance of its functions.
• Authorized the NASA Administrator to enter into and perform such contracts, leases,cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of itswork and on such terms as it may deem appropriate, with any agency or instrumentalityof the United States, or with any State, Territory, or possession, or with any politicalsubdivision thereof, or with any person, firm, association, corporation, or educationalinstitution.
• Permitted the Administrator to engage in international cooperative programs pursuant toNASA’s mission.
The Freedom of Information Act (1966) (PL 104-231) [5 USC 552]
• Provided a vehicle to inform the public about federal government activities.
• Gave citizens the right to request agency records and have them available promptly.
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (PL 96-480) [15 USC3701–3714]
• Focused on dissemination of information.
• Required Federal Laboratories to take an active role in technical cooperation.
• Established Offices of Research and Technology Application at major federallaboratories.
• Established the Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology (in the NationalTechnical Information Service).
38
Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (PL 96-517)
• Permitted universities, not-for-profits, and small businesses to obtain title to inventionsdeveloped with governmental support.
• Provided early on intellectual property rights protection of invention descriptions frompublic dissemination and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
• Allowed government-owned, government-operated (GOGO) laboratories to grantexclusive licenses to patents.
Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (PL 97-219)
• Required agencies to provide special funds for small-business R&D connected to theagencies’ missions.
• Established the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR).
Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (PL 98-462)
• Eliminated the treble-damage aspect of antitrust concerns of companies wishing to poolresearch resources and engage in joint precompetitive R&D.
• Resulted in consortia, e.g., the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) andMicroelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), among others.
Trademark Clarification Act of 1984 (PL 98-620)
• Permitted decisions to be made at the laboratory level in government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) laboratories as to awarding licenses for patents.
• Permitted contractors to receive patent royalties for use in R&D or awards, or foreducation.
• Permitted private companies, regardless of size, to obtain exclusive licenses.
• Permitted laboratories run by universities and nonprofit institutions to retain title toinventions, within limitations.
Japanese Technical Literature Act of 1986 (PL 99-382)
• Improved the availability of Japanese science and engineering literature in the UnitedStates.
39
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (PL 99-502)
• Made technology transfer a responsibility of all federal laboratory scientists andengineers.
• Mandated that technology transfer responsibility be considered in employee performanceevaluations.
• Established a principle of royalty sharing for federal inventors (15 percent minimum) andset up a reward system for other innovators.
• Legislated a charter for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer andprovided a funding mechanism for that organization to carry out its work.
• Provided specific requirements, incentives and authorities for the Federal Laboratories.
• Empowered each agency to give the director of GOCO laboratories authority to enter intocooperative R&D agreements and negotiate licensing agreements with streamlinedheadquarters review.
• Allowed laboratories to make advance agreements with large and small companies ontitle and license to inventions resulting from Cooperative R&D Agreements (CRADAs)with government laboratories.
• Allowed directors of GOGO laboratories to negotiate licensing agreements for inventionsmade at their laboratories.
• Provided for exchanging GOGO laboratory personnel, services, and equipment with theirresearch partners.
• Made it possible to grant and waive rights to GOGO laboratory inventions andintellectual property.
• Allowed current and former federal employees to participate in commercial development,to the extent that there is no conflict of interest.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987 (PL 100-107)
• Established categories and criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige National Industry Award.
Executive Orders 12591 and 12618 (1987): Facilitating Access to Science andTechnology
• Promoted the commercialization of science and technology.
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (PL 100-148)
• Placed emphasis on the need for public/private cooperation in assuring full use of resultsand resources.
• Established centers for transferring manufacturing technology.
40
• Established Industrial Extension Services within states and an information clearinghouseon successful state and local technology programs.
• Changed the name of the National Bureau of Standards to the National Institute ofStandards and Technology and broadened its technology transfer role.
• Extended royalty payment requirements to nongovernment employees of federallaboratories.
• Authorized Training Technology Transfer centers administered by the Department ofEducation.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act for FY1989 (PL 100-519)
• Established a Technology Administration within the Department of Commerce.
• Permitted contractual consideration for rights to intellectual property, other than patents,in cooperative research and development agreements.
• Included software development contributors eligible for awards.
• Clarified the rights of guest worker inventors regarding royalties.
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (PL 100-676)
• Authorized Army Corps of Engineers laboratories and research centers to enter intocooperative research and development agreements.
• Allowed the Corps to fund up to 50 percent of the cost of the cooperative project.
National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (PL 101-189)
• Granted GOCO federal laboratories the opportunity to enter into CRADAs and otheractivities with universities and private industry, under essentially the same terms as statedunder the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
• Allowed information and innovations, brought into and created through cooperativeagreements, to be protected from disclosure.
• Provided a technology transfer mission for the nuclear weapons laboratories.
Defense Authorization Act for FY 1991 (PL 101-510)
• Established model programs for national defense laboratories to demonstrate successfulrelationships among federal government, state and local governments, and smallbusinesses.
41
• Provided for a federal laboratory to enter into a contract or memorandum ofunderstanding with a partnership intermediary to perform services related to cooperativeor joint activities with small businesses.
• Provided for the development and implementation of a National Defense ManufacturingTechnology Plan.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (PL 102-240)
• Authorized the Department of Transportation to provide not more than 50 percent of thecost of CRADAs for highway research and development.
• Encouraged innovative solutions to highway problems and stimulated the marketing ofnew technologies on a cost-shared basis of more than 50 percent if there is substantialpublic interest or benefit.
American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991 (PL 102-245)
• Extended Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) mandate, removed FLC responsibilityfor conducting a grant program, and required the inclusion of the results of anindependent annual audit in the FLC Annual Report to Congress and the President.
• Included intellectual property as potential contributions under CRADAs.
• Required the Secretary of Commerce to report on the advisability of authoring a newform of CRADA that permits federal contributions of funds.
• Allowed laboratory directors to give excess equipment to educational institutions andnonprofit organizations as a gift.
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Act of 1992 (PL 102-564)
• Established a three-year pilot program—Small Business Technology Transfer(STTR)—at the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE),Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
• Directed the Small Business Administration (SBA) to oversee and coordinate theimplementation of the STTR Program.
• Designed the STTR to be similar to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)program.
• Required each of the five agencies listed above to fund cooperative R&D projectsinvolving a small company and a researcher at a university, federally funded research anddevelopment center, or nonprofit research center.
National Department of Defense Authorization Act for 1993 (PL 102-25)
• Facilitated and encouraged technology transfer to small businesses.
42
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (PL 102-484)
• Established the DoD Office of Technology Transition.
• Extended the streamlining of small-business technology transfer procedures for non-federal laboratory contractors.
• Directed the DOE to issue guidelines to facilitate technology transfer to small businesses.
• Extended the potential for CRADAs to some DoD-funded Federally Funded Researchand Development Centers (FFRDCs) not owned by the government.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (PL 103-160)
• Broadened the definition of a laboratory to include the weapons production facilities ofthe DOE.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (PL 104-113)
• Gave CRADA partners sufficient intellectual property rights to justify promptcommercialization of inventions resulting from a CRADA.
• Authorized CRADA partners the right to an exclusive or nonexclusive license resultingfrom a CRADA.
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 (PL 106-404)
• Improved the ability of federal agencies to license federally owned inventions byreforming technology training authorities under the Bayh-Dole Act.
• Permitted laboratories to bring already existing government inventions into a CRADA.
USBP
PA
TCA
EO
TOTAL Conduct of Federal R&D by All Performers 34,235,264 23,815,897 7,259,400 6,321,757 3,017,080 1,805,885 1,111,554 3,078,614 80,645,451Federal laboratory
Operated by USG (intramural) X X X 7,898,700 4,133,700 1,841,900 510,100 20,300 1,268,200 911,300 1,701,000 18,285,200Operated by university/college (i.e., GOCO FFRDC) X 272,400 67,000 1,199,700 2,481,800 167,600 0 100 25,200 4,213,800Operated by non-profit (i.e., GOCO FFRDC) X 400,500 42,500 5,100 549,800 5,300 0 100 115,600 1,118,900Operated by industrial firm (i.e., GOCO FFRDC) X 212,100 270,400 200 895,000 0 0 0 19,700 1,397,400
Universities & Colleges X 1,615,300 13,528,600 845,100 643,600 2,506,200 500,900 109,100 450,100 20,198,900Non-profit/non-educational X 258,000 3,806,900 444,400 49,600 163,900 16,300 10,000 341,800 5,090,900Industry/business1 23,473,800 1,710,300 2,900,700 1,078,800 130,300 14,100 74,200 432,800 29,815,000
Large business (est.) X 19,436,306 371,135 2,201,631 569,606 16,418 592 41,849 319,437 22,956,975Small business (est.) X 4,037,494 1,339,165 699,069 509,194 113,882 13,508 32,351 113,363 6,858,025
OtherState/Local U.S. government X 2,900 167,100 8,100 11,500 10,200 3,000 6,500 60,000 269,300Foreign government 101,700 89,400 41,300 1,500 13,300 3,400 200 5,300 256,100
Bayh-Dole Act (B-D) (35 USC 200 et. seq.) 26,232,100 19,425,700 5,395,200 5,698,600 2,973,300 531,300 193,500 1,385,200 61,834,900University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act (USBPPA) 5,910,794 18,674,665 1,988,569 1,202,394 2,783,982 530,708 151,451 905,263 32,147,825Trademark Clarification Act (TCA) 2 885,000 379,900 1,205,000 3,926,600 172,900 0 200 160,500 6,730,100E.O. 12591 (EO) 19,436,306 371,135 2,201,631 569,606 16,418 592 41,849 319,437 22,956,975
Stevenson-Wydler (S-W) (15 USC 3700, et. seq.)3 7,901,600 4,300,800 8,100 11,500 30,500 1,271,200 917,800 1,761,000 16,202,500Space Act (SA) (42 USC 2457)4 na na 1,841,900 na na na na na 1,841,900
na na na 510,100 na na na na 510,100
Basic Research 1,363,205 12,969,005 2,548,050 2,339,169 2,799,076 848,751 53,351 478,684 23,399,291Major Systems Development 25,246,972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,246,972
Applied Research and Non-Major Systems Development 7,625,087 10,846,892 4,711,350 3,982,588 218,004 957,134 1,058,203 2,599,930 31,999,188
Life Sciences 406,149 7,718,402 150,301 44,909 15,911 600,023 188,969 542,042 9,666,706Engineering 2,010,441 236,673 1,258,802 857,352 125,367 35,361 145,558 337,135 5,006,689Mathematics and computer sciences 699,457 94,600 45,310 711,931 19,970 10,745 76,547 31,782 1,690,342Environmental Science 128,729 238,543 308,224 56,388 2,009 6,987 384,324 463,383 1,588,587Physical Sciences 161,156 375,403 90,316 485,377 23,688 37,861 82,867 52,575 1,309,253Psychology 40,322 899,644 13,259 0 25 275 0 76,920 1,030,445Social sciences 26,782 260,755 0 0 15,160 113,252 27,767 472,257 915,973Other Applied Research n.e.c. 183,988 342,459 6,713 9,100 15,874 2,395 60,848 98,245 719,622Development, Non-Major Systems 3,968,064 680,413 2,838,425 1,817,531 0 150,235 91,323 525,580 10,071,571
All amounts are from "Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002, Volume 50 (NSF 02-321).1 The percent of each agency's R&D contracts that were awarded to Small Businesses were determined using RaDiUS. Since the government-wide percent is 25%, this amount was used to determine "Other."2 In implementing the TCA requirements, DOE has effectively adopted, via the provisions of FFRDC M&O contracts, the language of Stevenson-Wydler.
4 The Space Act governs the intramural technology transfer activities of NASA only. 5 The Atomic Energy Act and the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research Act govern the intramural technology transfer activities of DOE only.
Atomic Energy Act (AECA) (42 USC 2182) and Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research Act (FNERA) (42 USC 5908)5
31%
77%
na
1%
Off limits for TTToo early for TT
28%20%2%
4%
30%
40%8%
16%5%
3 The technology transfer activities of all federal intraumral R&D is governed by Stevenson-Wydler, while their patenting and licensing activities are governed by Bayh-Dole. Stevenson-Wydler was amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 which allowed lbaoratories to license their inventions, and after sharing 15% with the employee inventor, keep all the remaining royalities.
Prime Candidates for TT
3%3%2%
5%
NASA
B-D
S-W
SA AEA
/FNE
RA
Table B.1
OtherTOTAL 2002
(estimated obligations in
1,000's)
DOE NSF USDA DOCPERFORMERS of FEDERAL R&D DOD HHS
45
Appendix C. Measuring Technology Transfer
Because technology consists of knowledge that may be embedded in complex processes, it isdifficult to quantify and assess the transfer of that knowledge. Systematic study of technologytransfer is still a fairly youthful field, having come into prominence over the past two decades,partly in response to the Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler Acts of 1980. This appendix focuseson the current state of metrics for analyzing federal technology transfer activities.
In this appendix, we address three questions:• What are the main mechanisms of technology transfer?• What constitutes a successful transfer?• What metrics have been used to measure transfer and evaluate “success”?
Measurement and Analysis Issues
Successful measurement and analysis must begin with clear concepts and definitions that answerimportant questions, such as what “technology transfer” means, and which activities andprocesses are included and excluded. An interagency working group of the InteragencyCommittee on Federal Technology Transfer (chaired by the Department of Commerce) hasprovided useful answers by identifying the most important mechanisms of federal technologytransfer:
1. Licensing
Legislation enacted over the past two decades to streamline the process of patenting andlicensing by universities, national laboratories, and federal agencies of the results of federallyfunded research has greatly increased the volume of patent applications. The motivation forseeking to increase patent applications includes the revenue stream generated from licensingthe patent and the protection afforded by a patent, attracting companies, investors, andentrepreneurs to license the patent for commercial application.
New technology-based companies established to commercialize technologies developed byfederally funded research and development often involve the professors and universitystudents who developed the technology. These researchers bring with them in-depthknowledge and a level of effort borne out of their personal stake in the success of thetechnology transfer.
46
2. Cooperative activities
Cooperative activities between universities or federal laboratories and the private sector arefacilitated through legal mechanisms. These mechanisms include CRADAs and Space Actagreements, for example.
3. Technical assistance
Research personnel and scientists at universities or federal laboratories provide paid orunpaid technology consulting to commercial firms.
4. Reimbursable work for nonfederal partners
5. Use of facilities
6. Exchange programs
The exchange of personnel in either direction between research organizations andcommercial enterprises can develop informal channels of communication that enablesuccessful transfer of technology. Professors spending their sabbaticals in a companylaboratory are exposed to technical challenges that they can bring back to their laboratorieswhile also contributing knowledge toward solving more immediate problems. Theknowledge they bring back to their laboratories will provide a broader context for their workand their training of students, who will, in turn, bring knowledge with them as they join theworkforce. Student internships at companies serve a similar purpose.
Companies may also identify specific research groups whose work is of interest to them andsend technical personnel to work in those laboratories through formal collaborations and jointdevelopment projects.
7. Collegial interchange, publications, and conferences
The publication and presentation of research is another major pathway by which informationabout methods, processes, and discoveries is disseminated. Informal conversations duringconferences may likewise foster the person-to-person connections that lead to technologytransfer.The education and training of students may result in transfers of knowledge from universityresearch into the private sector. Students contribute to technology through their researchactivities at their universities, followed by their moving into the workforce, whether into anestablished company, into government, or by starting a company based on their graduatework. The national laboratories and federal agencies participate in this form of technologytransfer as well, although to a lesser extent, given the nature of their primary missions.
47
Some technology transfers may involve only a single event, while others may span two or moreevents. For example, a collegial interchange may lead scientists from a business firm and alaboratory to design a cooperative R&D project resulting in a CRADA. From that experience,the firm might license some intellectual property from the laboratory. Once a relationship isdeveloped between a business firm and a laboratory, that relationship may come to encompassmany technology transfer mechanisms.
Defining these mechanisms is the first step in understanding how to gauge the success oftechnology transfer. Next, the goals of the transfer must be articulated clearly, so thatmeasurement can address them. Although defining a vision of success sounds straightforward,in fact there may be serious difficulties in defining a measure of what constitutes success. Forexample, many laboratory technology transfer officials believe that the completed hand-off of atechnology constitutes success.27 After all, once the transfer is made to a commercial firm, thereare many non-technology factors over which the transferor has limited influence, and thesefactors affect whether the transferor’s contribution will have an economic impact. In addition,defining success by the number of hand-offs simplifies the measurement task and directlyindicates the transferor’s skill at making transfers.
However, this limited definition is inadequate for addressing some policy questions. There ispolicy interest in knowing whether the universities and federal laboratories are contributing tothe nation's economic well-being and competitiveness. Knowing this requires systems thatmeasure the economic impact of technology transfers. Such impacts might be measured in thedollar amounts of new sales, payrolls, and similar outcomes at the societal level. But in manycases the impact will be felt mostly at the business-firm level and may take the form of costreduction or cost avoidance, concepts that are more subjective and more difficult to measure.
Moreover, many federally funded R&D activities involve universities and federal laboratories,where the culture and organizational goals differ from those in the commercial sector.Consequently, industry has no single definition of successful interaction with universities andfederal laboratories. Some would consider new or improved products and short-term profits tobe the bottom line, judging success or failure on that basis. However, a survey of IndustrialResearch Institute members indicated that a majority of chief technical officers believe the mostimportant payoffs from these interactions occur in the form of access to knowledge andexpertise, leveraging R&D, sharing risks, and complementary R&D portfolios.28 These benefits
______________27 Robb (1991).28 Roessner (1993), p. 8.
48
have economic impacts, but the impacts emerge only in the long-term. Some analysts feel thatindustry views of success may be influenced by company size. Large firms with internal productdevelopment and R&D tend to seek more generic technologies and expertise in earlier stages ofmaturity, whereas smaller firms more often seek help with products and processes at a pointcloser to commercialization.29
After the parties agree on goals, the challenge of measurement becomes constructing metrics thatcapture the appropriate characteristics of the technology, the actors, and the transfer to determineif the goals are being met. Measurement activities involve collecting data about actual processesand efforts. For example, if one goal of transfer is to generate a profusion of patents andlicenses, then published data on patents and licenses are a source of information about the outputfrom the processes and activities. Sidebar C.1 illustrates how several different measures oftechnology transfer are used to assess the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act on innovation. Specialsurveys and case studies of firms, laboratories, and universities are other sources of informationabout inputs, processes, and outputs. Sometimes a measure is very particular to the goal or areaof development. For example, one innovative approach examines the Word Wide Web as aconduit of scientific knowledge to biotechnology developers. Another features a large databaseof strategic organizational alliances among universities, laboratories, and industrial firms.Statistical analysis of these varied data shows promise in understanding the so-called “valley ofdeath” in technology transfer: the gap in funding, for example, between the time a paper ispublished and the decision to invest in the technology described in the paper.
______________29 Kassicieh and Radosevich (1994).
49
Sidebar C.1—Assessing the Impact of Bayh-Dole on Innovation
Analysts at the Economist magazine measured the impact of Bayh-Dole on Americaninnovation.30 They noted that before Bayh-Dole “inventions and discoveries made in Americanuniversities, teaching hospitals, national laboratories and non-profit institutions sat in warehousesgathering dust.” The U.S. government owned 28,000 patents in 1980, but only 5 percent hadbeen licensed to industry. At the same time, the federal government was providing 60 percent ofthe funding for academic research. However, since Bayh-Dole was passed, there has been atenfold increase in patents generated at universities, and the universities have created 2,200 firmsto commercialize research done in their laboratories. Rather than absorbing funds, universitieshave begun generating funds for the American economy, creating 260,000 jobs and pumping $40billion annually into the economy.
The Metrics and Their Uses
Despite the challenges in measuring and assessing technology transfer, it is possible to developuseful metrics of technology transfer. Practitioners and scholars of technology transfer havedeveloped diverse metrics, including:
• Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates taking jobs in thetechnology sector
• Patents
• Manufacturing innovations
• Web hits to a science database
• Innovation networks
• Transfer mechanisms
• Knowledge spillovers.31
Table C.1 describes the following seven characteristics of each of these metrics
• Definition. How is this metric defined in actual use? Each metric corresponds to at leastseveral operational definitions.
• Application field. For which fields of science or technology has this metric beencollected?
______________30 “Innovation’s Golden Goose,” (2002).31 Another possible metric of interest is cost savings: the savings in having someone else do the research and transfer it.
For example, cost savings have been documented for a major development at DuPont--the replacement of Freon (Kanter, Kao,and Wiersema1997, pp. 84-85).
50
• Directly or indirectly measured. Is the transfer directly observed in data or a casestudy, or is it inferred from statistical estimation of relationships between innovationactivities of transferors and transferees?
• Data source. Is this measure documented in publicly available data, special surveys, orcase studies?
• Strengths. What are the main advantages of this metric, compared with others?
• Weaknesses. What are the main drawbacks?
• Key citations. What papers or books have developed this metric or collected data on it?
Table C.2 summarizes how the same seven metrics have been used to describe or understand theelements of technology transfer. The table summarizes the following five aspects of the use ofthe metrics:
• Application field. To which fields of science or technology has this metric beenapplied?
• Focus on transferor, transferee, or process? Which category of actor in the processgets the researcher’s attention, or is the attention on the process itself?
• What is the purpose or hypothesis for the analysis? What question—academic orpractical—motivates the research?
• Principal findings. What research results have emerged to advance the science orinform the actions of universities, laboratories, firms, or government?
• Key citations. What papers or books present or summarize these analyses?
Metrics Definition Application Field
Directly or Indirectly Measured
Data Source Strengths Weaknesses Key Citations
STEM Graduates Taking Jobs in
Tech Sector
Number of degree recipients beginning private sector technical employment
All fields Directly measured
National Science Foundation
–A measure of human capital inflows to industry–Measured at all degree levels–Available for major fields of study and industrial sector–Available annually
–Does not indicate quality of education National Science Board (2002),
Patentsnumber applied for/granted; by field of S&T; whether basic or applied; by country and institutional affiliation of applicant
All FieldsDirectly measured
United States Patent and Trade Office
–Data characteristics are known through extensive analysis–Various prepared data files available–Available for many countries
–Not the equivalent of a direct measure of innovative output–Many inventions are not patented, probably increasingly in some industries
Acs and Audretsch (1989), Griliches (1990), Hall et al (2001)
Manufacturing Innovations
Number of innovations recorded by the SBA in 1982 from leading technology, engineering, and trade journals
Separate manufacturing industries
Directly measured Publicly available
Includes inventions not patented but still introduced into the market and excludes those that were patented but yet never appeared in the market
Available only for 1982 Acs and Audretsch (1988, 1990)
Innovation Networks
Databases of panel data on strategic partnerships (joint ventures) among companies, universities and laboratories; on patents and patent citations; and on company financial performance. 1985-1999.
All fieldsDirectly measured
Justice Department administrative records on strategic partnership formation; public patent data, and publically available
–A process measure that characterizes strategic alliances–Includes all strategic partnerships registered with the Federal government–Merges data on nature and technical area of partnership with data from other sources for each of the partners
– Vonortas (2001)
Web hits to Science Databases
Information accessed from databases, e.g., number of “hits”, average time spent on page, # of downloads
Genomics(so far)
Directly measured
analysis of server logs of genomic sequencing data from the three largest public global biodatabases
–A direct measure of transfer activity–A “pull” measure–Very large number of transactionsidentification of type of transferee–Identification of detailed application field of information
–Applicable only to transfers occurring over the web–Requires high volume of transfers for statistical analysis–May require web source permission to acquire data
Enriquez and Martinez (2002)
Transfer Mechanisms
# sign-in visitors from the university; # meetings together; # documents sent from a university (push); # university documents requested by firm staff (pull); # seminars attended; # personnel exchanges/transfers; time required to complete agreements; etc.
All FieldsDirectly measured
Special survey or case study Documents detailed transfer opportunities
–Hard to define a project’s start, end, and boundaries—once adopted by the firm or not until commercialized?–Hard to deal with the counterfactual—Would the transferee have developed the technology even without the transfer?–Universities and firms can be reluctant to provide data–Experiences tend to be localized and hard to generalize
Melkers and Cozzens (1997), Feller (1988), Janis (1997), Bennett (1997)
Knowledge Spillovers
Estimated statistical relationship between innovation activity at universities, labs, or other firms, on the one hand, and innovation activity, new technology, or economic effects at transferee firms, on the other hand
All Fields Indirectly estimated
–Published patent data–Published federal business statistics reported by industry and geography–Special surveys of firms
Requires no direct measure of transfer –Requires econometric expertise to estimate inferred transfer activity–Does not identify mechanisms of tech transfer
Mansfield (1980), Jaffe (1986), Zoltan et.al. (1994)
Table C.1: Definitions and Characteristics of Technology Transfer Metrics
Metrics Application Field Focus Purposes Principal Findings Key Citations
STEM Graduates Taking Jobs in Tech Sector
Few so far Process
To study the relationship between the number of new STEM employees, and technology adoption and use in the private sector
These personnel flows are yet to be directly examined as a factor in thechnology tranfer –
Patents ManyBoth transferor and transferee
To study the relationship between patent activity in universities and Federal labs, on the one hand, and technology adoption and use in the private sector, on the other hand.
–Strong positive correlation between firms’ R&D expenditures and their patents–Strong positive correlation between patent activity in nearby universities and measures of firms’ R&D effectiveness–Citation-weighted measures of patents are more highly correlated with firms’ market value than unweighted measures
Griliches (1990), Hall et.al. (2000)
Manufacturing Innovations Manufacturing TransfereeTo improve on patents as a measure of output of firm’s S&T activities
–Impact of university spillovers is greater on firms’ innovations than on firms' patents–Influence of geographic proximity of universities is much stronger on firms’ innovations than on firms' patents
Acs, et.al.(1992)
Innovation Networks All Fields ProcessTo study the efficacy of different forms of strategic partenerships in inducing technology transfer and innovation
Analysis is just underway, using formal network modelsVonortas (2001)
Web hits to Science DatabasesGenomics(so far)
TransfereeTo describe amount of data transferred, by characteristics of firms and labs, by country, and by application field
–Nucleotide data to be transferred is growing super exponentially–The U.S.database is increasingly dominant in both data and access, compared to European and Japanese databases–Half of world database access comes from U.S. organizations–98% of downloads from the Japanese database were from Japan, but foreigners account for more than half the downloads from U.S. and Europe–The top three accessing countries accounted for 3/4 of total usage–The most active .edu user accounted for 1/4 of all U.S. .edu downloads. The top 10 accounted for 92%.–U.S. .com use was almost as concentrated, 17% and 85% respectively.–.com downloads were very rare in Japan compared with 48% in U.S.–Humans grew from 0% of genome module downloads to 85% between 1998 and 2001
Enriquez and Martinez (2002)
Transfer Mechanisms All Fields Process–To evaluate tech transfer experiences–To identify best practice mechanisms for adoption by universities and firms
Findings are for specific partnerships and states
Bozeman (1997), Melkers and Cozzens (1997)
Knowledge Spillovers All FieldsBoth transferor and transferee
–To identify conditions favorable and unfavorable to transfer–To estimate the effects of transferor S&T activity on transferee activity and economic outcomes
–Nearby university research has substantial effect on corporate patent activity in drugs, medical technology, electronics, optics, and nuclear technology, and less in other fields–spillovers from universities are a more important input for generating innovative activity in small firms than in large ones. –Adoption of innovations from outside the firm occurs more rapidly in firms that themselves spend more on R&D. Hence, firms may invest in R&D even when it produces little innovation directly, in order to be able to assimilate and exploit innovations from outside.–Firms whose research is in application areas where there is much research by other firms have, on average, more patents per dollar of R&D and a higher return to R&D in terms of accounting profits or market value. Profitability of low R&D firms is lower in this environment than otherwise.–Number of manufacturing innovations yielded per dollar of in-state university research is highest in mechanical industries and lowest in chemical industries. Yield of manufacturing innovation per university patent is also highest in electronics and lowest in chemicals.
Link and Rees (1990), Audretsch and Feldman (1996), Jafe (1986), Jaffe (1989), Cohen and Levinthal (1989), Acs et.al. (1994)
Table C.2: Analytical Uses of Technology Transfer Metrics
53
Promising Research Directions in the Measurement of Technology Transfer
Some early measurements of technology transfer relied on available data, which was not alwaysadequate. But in the past two decades, evaluators have made substantial progress. They nolonger look “under the lamppost” (where the light was good but the target item may not havebeen hiding) and instead use metrics, a value of which can be used to determine if goals havebeen met. For example, it is straightforward to count patents as a measure of success, but theexistence of a patent does not indicate whether or how frequently the patented technology isbeing used. However, when one patent is cited in another patent application, the citation impliesthat patents are building on each other; the technology is being amplified or extended. Today’spatent databases now include detailed and complex adjustments for citations, more accuratelyreflecting the activity related to a single patent’s utility and adoption. Similarly, measuring Webhits to science databases captures a sense of the activity related to a particular idea. Each linkrequires permission for accessing the confidentiality-protected source records, in addition toconfidentiality protection protocols to satisfy institutional review boards. The complex codingand aggregation of the millions of observations yield a way to compare the utility of one ideawith another, as well as the degree to which an idea has penetrated its target community.
To support the analysis of how innovations are being embraced, George Washington Universityis creating “innovation networks” databases. These repositories require laborious exact matchingof diverse files from different federal agencies and updating of those files over time. But theinformation they contain reflects relationships not visible in any other way. For example, acategory called “transfer mechanisms” documents many of the process characteristics notnormally collected in records of laboratories, universities, and firms. The database analysts havemade serious attempts to measure intra-organizational process characteristics that are relevantand important, far beyond the numbers that are readily available or that are easy to obtain.
Whereas early attempts at transfer-related measurements were relatively simple, currentmeasurement efforts are more difficult but richer. For example, the econometric analysesunderlying “knowledge spillover” research can be statistically complex and computationallydemanding, but they provide important insight into the degree to which knowledge in one field isapplied to other fields. Here, the form of technology transfer is not necessarily toward immediatecommercialization, but is simply the beneficial sharing of know-how and knowledge.
Still, there is room for improvement in data collection and analysis. No particular metric isappropriate for all applications, nor is any particular analytical tool correct for answering everyquestion. Some promising avenues for research have only recently opened. Yet the principal
54
findings (sampled in Table C.2), even from a field barely 20 years old, are already varied anduseful. They point in some instances to patterns worthy of closer attention from practitioners oftechnology transfer and from policymakers. Other findings hint at patterns that should now beexamined in directed research.
Among the measurement issues yet to be investigated systematically are the generalizationsposited by participants in the PCAST Technology Transfer Forum on December 12, 2002, whichwere generated from their own experiences and are listed in Sidebar C.2. These statementsshould be considered hypotheses whose generality is yet to be established.
Sidebar C.2—Issues Related to Technology Transfer Measurement (from Forum Participants)
Perceptions of Technology Transfer Forum participants:
• The inventor must be involved in technology transfer, especially early in development—forhis or her expertise and vision—for the transfer to succeed.
• A greater number of revolutionary technologies spin out into new small companies, and notlarge established firms.
• Vis-à-vis private industry, the national laboratories are better at building small numbers orthree of something, rather than mass producing a great many.
• Once a company has worked successfully one time with a laboratory or university, theprocess is much easier thereafter.
The statements from the forum participants in Sidebar C.2, combined with other measurementissues and contexts, suggest ten research challenges that merit investigation:
1. Relating and integrating analyses of direct and indirect metrics. Direct and indirectmeasurements are sometimes two distinct bodies of work conducted by people in differentdisciplines with different orientations and tools.
2. Integrating analyses of direct and indirect metrics? by building data sets that combineorganization-level transfer mechanisms with the firm characteristics used in spilloveranalysis.
3. Identifying fields other than genomics in which Web hits to science databases cancharacterize the transfer.
4. Attending to the different cultures in which developers and inventors, university andlaboratory transfer offices, and industrial firms operate.
5. Incorporating risk, particularly by identifying where in the process risk is assumed, andtaking risk into account in both measurement and analysis.
55
6. Understanding the impact on technology transfer of the shift from government to industry asthe major source of R&D investment.
7. Extending the research now under way that describes and explains the internationalization ofinnovation and transfer.
8. Examining the effects of technology transfer attaining the major goals of government,universities, laboratories, and industry. Such goals might include productivity growth,faculty retention, local amenities to facilitate hiring, and increased stock values, respectively.
9. Moving beyond description and analysis toward direct evaluation of the effects andeffectiveness of relevant laws and regulations.
10. Carefully specifying the disciplinary and organizational domains in which particular researchfindings are applicable.
Summary
There are several mechanisms for transferring technology. The main ones are fairly well-understood. They include licensing, cooperative research and development agreements,technical assistance, reimbursable work for nonfederal partners, sharing of facilities, exchangeprograms, collegial interchange, publications, and conferences.
There are also many ways to measure and quantify technology transfer. The applicability ofeach measure depends on many things, including the goals of the organizations involved, thedegree to which the measure is objective or subjective, and the accuracy and appropriateness ofthe way the data are collected and analyzed.
Ultimately, assessments of technology transfer depend on how success is defined. Althoughsetting goals may seem straightforward, the nature of collaborative efforts and diverse notions ofsuccess across different organizations and cultures can make it difficult to determine if the goalshave been met. Thus, addressing many measurement challenges depends on developing clearerviews of success, both in the short-term and long-term.
57
Appendix D. Toward Finding Best Practices
The situations in which technology is developed and adopted are numerous and diverse, and eachsituation has its own particular characteristics. Identifying best practices requires a shared senseof what is meant by "successful technology transfer." As indicated in Appendix C, notions ofsuccess differ, depending on the context and intent of the transfer, and measures of successdepend on one’s goals. Assuming it is possible to measure overall success within some context,we can then identify those practices that help to meet those goals. That is, measures of success,even when they differ from one situation to another, can shed light on which technology transferactivities encourage movement from concept to reality to goods or services.
This appendix builds on this understanding of success by describing how to seek a set ofpractices that facilitate technology transfer, derived from the accumulated experience ofuniversities, national laboratories, and corporations. The appendix also highlights severalpractices that seem likely to promote effective technology transfer and, thus, are good candidatesfor closer examination.
In this appendix, we address two main questions:
• What are the important variables of a framework for defining best practice?
• How can these variables help in modeling and evaluating candidate best practices?
The Search for Best Practices
Most sources of best practice derive from stories that are published or publicly presented.Lessons emerge from the experiences of others that are shared in forums that includeprofessional societies (e.g., the Association of University Technology Managers), journals (e.g.,the Journal of Technology Transfer), and Internet bulletin boards (e.g., Techno-L Digest).32
These sources may reflect a variety of evidence, ranging from carefully measured variables (suchas the number of people involved, the amount of money spent, and the time to market atechnology) to subjective and varied opinions about which practices and products had thegreatest positive impact on a transfer’s success. In seeking credible evidence of best practices, it
______________32 Techno_L Digest is a discussion forum for patent attorneys, technology transfer, and licensing professionals in
universities, government, non-profit research institutions, and in private industry. It is hosted at http://www.uventures.com/ (clickTecho-L).
58
is important to frame a search in the context of a search for variables and their relationships.That is, it is vital to model a particular technology transfer process, define measures of successfor activities and outputs, identify the variables involved, and look for relationships that willindicate whether certain inputs and relationships yield certain outputs or outcomes.
Thus, the first step in gathering evidence is finding descriptions of past practices and outcomes.In examining each description, it can be useful to pose several questions about what was done inthe past:
• What are the risks in technology transfer? Each element of technology transfer has itsown set of risks. Moreover, the more revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, thetechnology is, the greater are the attendant risks. However, the potential payoffs are high,so it is incumbent upon all parties to recognize the risks in each other’s areas ofresponsibility and to work collaboratively to reduce them.
• How much support was provided internally and externally? Support may includemanagement, technology/research staff, and technology transfer administrators. Trustand a common understanding of expectations may also play a role in support andguidance.
• What are the key activities in the model of technology transfer that was used? What stepswere taken, and what are the dependencies among the steps? That is, which things had tobe accomplished before other activities could begin?
• What are the roles of the key actors in the technology transfer model? It is important tofind out who performs each activity and to understand the organizational hierarchy—i.e.,who reports to whom?
In looking carefully at examples of technology transfer, one can identify variables associatedwith the issues of successful technology transfer and the way they were resolved. Among thosevariables might be
• Institutional incentives
• Organizational culture
• Job descriptions
• Performance evaluation measures
• Disclosure and patenting procedures
• Previous experience with technology
• Previous experience with technology transfer
• Expectations of outcome
• Relevant standards
• Time horizons
• Channels of communication
59
• Cost
• Conflicts of mission (in terms of discipline, ownership of results, and such).
We use these variables and their relationships to build candidate models of how technologytransfer was accomplished, either successfully or unsuccessfully.
Finding Candidates for Best Practices
This section discusses a preliminary set of practices and barriers that motivate investigation ofnew practices for improving technology transfer. The selection is based on a review of theliterature, responses submitted to the questionnaire associated with the PCAST forum, and alimited number of additional interviews of university, national laboratory, and corporate actorsinvolved in technology transfer. Despite differences in organizational missions, structures, andconstraints, the following practices were mentioned by many forum participants and seem toapply equally across many organizations.
Organizational Aids for Technology Transfer
Successful implementation of technology transfer policy requires support at all levels of anorganization. Three especially important organizational activities include:
1. Establishing a technology transfer office
2. Identifying and valuing intellectual property, including an appropriate intellectual propertystrategy (which may be sector-specific)
3. Creating mechanisms and incentives for getting researchers involved in technology transfer.
We next consider each of these in turn.
Technology Transfer Office. Skill at technology transfer generally improves as organizationsbecome more experienced at it. The learning curve is seldom smooth, however, and there arenumerous tales of frustration. A well-trained technology transfer office staff whose mission issupported by the organization may make learning easier for the rest of the organization. Thetechnology transfer office staff can possess technical, business, and legal skills to workeffectively with technical staff to identify, evaluate and develop a strategy both for identifyingintellectual property and for patenting, marketing, and licensing it.
One of the most important roles of a technology transfer office relates to all participants in thetechnology transfer: working toward an understanding of each stakeholder’s needs, priorities,
60
risks, and statutory limitations.33 The differences in culture, time scales, expectations, rewards,and priorities, among other differences, suggest that the investment in learning to work togetheris best recouped through ongoing long-term relationships between transferor and transferee.
Identification, assessment, and valuation of intellectual property and decisions onappropriate intellectual property strategy. Once technology reaches a certain level ofmaturity, it is ready to be considered for transferring to industry. If the number of inventiondisclosures is a useful measure of success, then technology transfer organizations can increasethe number of invention disclosures by training the researchers to recognize potential intellectualproperty. Providing streamlined procedures for disclosure and patenting can develop a positivefeedback loop, encouraging continued engagement of the researchers. Intermediary groups ornetworks may also be set up to identify inventions and assist in their evaluation. A review boardcomprising experts from different fields may also be valuable in identifying cross-cuttingapplications, challenging researchers to broaden the scope of their work.
Decisions about valuing intellectual property depends on several factors, including the promiseof payoffs derived from patents. However, the payoffs are generally smaller than expected. Forexample, as Agrawal and Henderson report, “Most [MIT Mechanical and Electrical Engineering]faculty members estimate that patents account for less than 10 percent of the knowledge thattransfers from their labs.34 Moreover, most laboratory inventions are far from ready forcommercial implementation, even though they may have great potential. That is, additional stepsare usually required to take an invention through development and into commercial practice orproduction. At the same time, it is difficult to interest firms in immature technologies without aprototype or proof of concept. Thus, value from the perspective of the university is not the sameas value from the perspective of a commercial investor.
Any model of the intellectual property process (creation, identification and capture) must includethese notions of valuation. To see how they may differ, consider the example of computerscience intellectual property (IP). At the Computing Research Association’s Snowbirdconference in July 2002, J. Strother Moore of the University of Texas at Austin refuted thepopular argument that computer science IP generates substantial revenue for universities. Moore
______________33 The following quote is an example of the oft-cited corporate view of collaboration with universities: “Typically at
present, negotiating a contract to perform collaborative research with an American university takes one to two years ofexchanging emails by attorneys, punctuated by long telephone conference calls involving the scientists who wish to worktogether. All too often, the company spends more on attorneys’ fees than the value of the contract being negotiated. Thissituation has driven many large companies away from working with American universities altogether, and they are looking foralternate research partners. Universities will in general receive far more funding in the form of research contracts from high-techcompanies than they will by licensing technology, because of the short life of such technologies and the fact that it is alwayspossible to substitute one technology for another” (Williams, 2002).
61
analyzed the licensing income of universities and concluded that while IP is indeed a powerfulrevenue generator for universities, only a fraction of the fees comes from licensing computerscience or electrical and computer engineering innovations.35 A similar analysis by DaveHodges, former Dean at the University of California at Berkeley, led to significant changes in theflexibility of University of California campuses in negotiating sponsors’ rights to universityintellectual property developed in computer science and electrical engineering-based sponsoredresearch.36, 37
In the fields of biotechnology and medicinal research, individual patents have potentially greatercommercial value because of their closer association with a specific application.38 The rapiddevelopments in these fields have far outpaced the regulatory system’s ability to addressquestions raised by the new technologies, such as whether clinical or other trials are necessary,or whether DNA-related research may be patented. The subsequent bureaucratic delays andlengthy processes have contributed to turmoil within the research communities, as expressed byseveral participants at the December 12 forum.
In other, more mature industries dealing with materials and manufacturing processes, such aschemicals or semiconductors, individual patents are less important than “baskets” of technologybecause companies are often heavily cross-licensed. Companies are interested in access to ideasat the scientific frontier and access to high-quality graduates, who are effective vehicles for thetransfer of academic research results to industry. For firms with these objectives, extensiverequirements for specification and negotiation of the disposition of intellectual property rightsfrom collaborative research may impede such collaboration.
Organizational mechanisms and incentives for researcher/inventor involvement in andsupport for technology transfer. Successful technology transfer often requires the support andspecialized knowledge of the researcher/inventor beyond the formal licensing of a patent. Indefining the organizational goals and objectives for technology transfer, forum participants madeit clear that mechanisms for enabling and encouraging the extra commitment of time and effortby the researcher need to be considered within the context of the other organizational priorities.For example, a manager of a federal research facility noted the difficulty of getting laboratory
____________________________________________________________34Agrawal and Henderson (2002), pp. 44–60.35 Moore (2002).36 August 30, 2000, memo from the University of California at Berkeley Office of Technology Transfer on the Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science Intellectual Property Pilot Program. (http://patron.ucop.edu/ottmemos/docs/ott00-02.html).37 Much computer-related intellectual property is copyrighted, as opposed to patented. This may account for some of the
difference in licensing rates compared with other disciplines.38Mowery (1998).
62
engineers to spend time with start-up firms when they were already overworked and notrewarded for some technology transfer activities.
Various mechanisms can be used to express technology transfer priorities. For instance,universities may allow faculty time for consulting. On the other hand, statutory restrictions onconsulting at national laboratories may present a barrier to effective technology transfer.“Entrepreneurial leave” was noted as an incentive offered by some institutions. Other forms ofincentives include percentage of royalties or licensing fees and the inclusion of technologytransfer as one component of the job description and in the personnel evaluation criteria.39
“The Valley of Death” (Between Research and Manufacturing)
Development can be the riskiest and most essential element in technology transfer. It is thejuncture where research ideas, perhaps matured to the proof-of-concept or prototype stage, meetpractical considerations (measured according to concepts such as defect levels and yields),economic realities, and the vagaries of the marketplace. Several forum participants called thisdivide “the valley of death.” Many laboratory inventions are far from the commercial stage,even though they may appear to have great potential. Indeed, one forum participant noted thatresearchers build prototypes in threes and fours, but that production level is a far cry from thehundreds or thousands of copies of a product needed for a viable marketing effort. The chasmbetween the immature state of the work emerging from the research laboratory and the level ofmaturity needed to attract a large corporate transferee was identified by many forum participantsand survey respondents as the largest barrier to technology transfer.
Technologies can be considered either evolutionary, in that they build on what is already knownand used, or revolutionary, in that they represent great leaps forward. Generally, startupcompanies are the only means of introducing revolutionary technologies, yet venture capital forsmall to mid-size startups is becoming more difficult to attract.40 Here the valley of death isparticularly wide. Numerous approaches to bridge it are being tried, including alternativefunding for internal or external maturation or incubation of a research project and cooperativedevelopment agreements. Business acumen is critical at this stage, along with the continuing
______________39 The modification of job descriptions and performance criteria in the research organizations (universities and national
laboratories) needs to be carefully considered in the context of the organization’s primary mission. Technology transfer would beonly one of many criteria, and the job descriptions should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the variety of roles that aresearcher/technologist may take on.
40Statements from survey respondents, PCAST Forum on Technology Transfer, Dec. 12, 2002, RAND, Arlington, Va.
63
support of the transferring researcher to ensure that the technical know-how is effectivelytransferred.
Categories of Best Practice
Sidebar D.1 illustrates some of the activities that can be used to enhance identification andtransfer of intellectual property, based on actions cited in the research literature. A broaderliterature survey, supplemented by comments from forum participants, suggests ten categories ofbest practices that can be considered for evaluation:
1. Ideas and mentors
2. Intellectual property awareness and capture
3. Institutional incentives and culture
4. Students
5. Intellectual property administration
6. Methods for assessing the value of research, including the management of the intellectualproperty portfolio
7. Project incubation and maturation
8. Licensing intellectual property: culture, management and alignment
9. Marketing inventions, innovations and technologies
10. Education.
Appendix C presents a table of forum and survey participants’ comments related to thesecategories and annotated with categorical references. This table can be gleaned for additionalcandidate best practices.
Sidebar D.1: Candidate Activities for Improving Technology Transfer of Intellectual Property
Perceptions of Technology Transfer Forum participants:
• Researchers can identify potential intellectual property. They should understand that theterm “intellectual property” has a broad scope, meaning that it can be interpreted as differentthings under different statutes.
• Some institutions actively pursuing technology transfer have tried to ensure that they captureall the intellectual properties developed in their laboratories by maximizing inventiondisclosures (and thus their inventory of licensable technologies) and by patenting as manypromising disclosures as budgets permit.
64
• Technology transfer networks or scouts, groups of trained researchers from within auniversity, or technologists from industry may be given wide access to governmentlaboratory or university research facilities to identify technologies that may be of commercialinterest.
• Students often serve as an effective means of technology transfer as they gain knowledgethrough their research and are subsequently employed in the private sector. However,conflicts of interest may arise among student, professor, and university goals. Explicitpolicies sometimes address these concerns.
Evaluating the Evidence
A great deal of anecdotal evidence supports any given practice. But an essential step in anyassessment of a candidate “best practice” is to look at the body of supporting evidence in itstotality. The relevant model of technology transfer, the appropriate measures associated with it,the data collected and reported in controlled situations, and the anecdotes are all components ofan argument in favor of the practice. These components can then be assessed to determinewhether they support the notion that a particular practice is effective. Critical questions include:
• How well was the practice implemented? That is, what steps were followed, and werethey followed thoroughly and in the proper order?
• What were the conditions before the practice was implemented? Could these conditionsaffect the practice’s results?
• Are there other activities or situations that could account for the results? That is, is thepractice the only reason that things turned out as they did?
• Is the practice repeatable? Could the same thing have happened if different peopleperformed the practice, or if the practice were implemented a second time?
Further research is needed to examine the state of the art and the state of the practice oftechnology transfer. A great deal has been learned, especially in the past 20 years. But a greatdeal needs to be done before an activity can be declared a best practice.
Summary
Defining best practices depends on how technology transfer success is defined in particularcontexts. Current understanding of best practices is underdeveloped. Interesting observationsand anecdotes give some clues to what works well and can serve to stimulate discussion andprovide a basis for deliberations. However, a framework for comparison and more rigorousresearch are needed to develop a sound approach to evaluating evidence on successful practices.
65
Appendix E. On-Line Questionnaire on TechnologyTransfer and Compilation of Responses
Technology Transfer ofFederally Funded Research
Questionnaire
Background
The Science and Technology Policy Institute at RAND (S&TPI) is collecting informationfrom individuals and organizations involved in technology transfer about experiences withtechnology transfer, the identification of “best practices,” and the “barriers” to implementingbest practices. The results of this questionnaire will be summarized in an S&TPI document ontechnology transfer for the use of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science andTechnology (PCAST) and others interested in the topic. Although we will be able to identifyyour contributions through the registration process, your comments will not be attributedwithout your approval. Moreover, we will use your contact information to send you a copy ofthe results.
By technology transfer we mean any of the following activities:
1. Informal discussions of research results and techniques between individuals supportedby federal funds (transferors) and individuals working in the private sector(transferees)
2. Formal dissemination of research results, for example, at conferences
3. Licensing of university and national laboratory patents to the private sector
4. Cooperative or collaborative research and development between a university or federallaboratory and the private sector
a. Informal: work initiated out of mutual interest without generation of writtenagreements
b. Formal: joint grants or agreements to perform collaborative work
66
5. Startup of small company based on federally funded research
6. Technical assistance from transferors to the private sector
7. Personnel exchange or loan (professor or student on visit or temporary assignment tocompany or company technologist on visit or temporary assignment to university)
8. Private-sector use of federally funded facilities
9. Formal exchange (written agreement, e.g., consultant) of nonpatented intellectualproperty--techniques, skills, the “art” of the practice, computer code, etc.)
Instructions
This questionnaire should take about 5 to 10 minutes to complete. The format includes bothcheckboxes and written responses. For the questions that require a written response, pleasehighlight the aspects that were most effective or useful to you (please include the context anddepth that you would find useful if provided by others).
You may answer this questionnaire on the bases of your personal involvement and experiencein your organization’s technology transfer or on the basis of the wider experience of yourwhole organization.
If you have additional information that you would like us to consider, please forward itelectronically to [email protected] or send it to Tech Transfer Forum, S&TPI/RAND, 1200South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22102.
A copy of the report will be posted on the S&TPI Web site.
Thank you for providing this information.
The Questionnaire
I. Demographics and role in technology transfer
A. What is your institutional affiliation? Please check all that apply:
U.S. university or college
67
Federal laboratory (non-federally funded research and development center [FFRDC])
FFRDC
Large corporation
Small corporation
U.S. nonprofit (noneducational)
State or local government
Federal government (non-FFRDC)
Foreign government
Other (please specify):
B. What is your role in the technology transfer process? Please check all that apply:
University federally funded researcher, inventor, or research manager (transferor)
University technology transfer administrator for researcher or inventor
National laboratory researcher, inventor, or research manager (transferor)
National laboratory technology transfer administrator for researcher or inventor
Company technologist or technology manager (transferee)
Company technology transfer administrator
Company executive
Other (please specify):
C. With which types of technology transfer have you or your organization beeninvolved? Please check all that apply:
Informal discussions of research results and/or techniques between transferors and transferees
Formal dissemination of research results (e.g., conferences)
68
Licensing of university or national laboratory patents to the private sector
Cooperative and/or collaborative R&D between a university or federal laboratory and theprivate sector:
Informal: work initiated out of mutual interest without generation of written agreements
Formal: joint grants or agreements to perform collaborative work
Startup of small company based on federally funded research
Technical assistance from transferors to the private sector
Personnel exchange or loan (professor or student on visit or temporary assignment tocompany or company technologist on visit or temporary assignment to university)Private-sector use of federally funded facilities
Formal exchange (written agreement, e.g., consultant) of nonpatented intellectual property--techniques, skills, the "art" of the practice, computer code, etc.
Other (describe):
II. Experiences with technology transfer
A. Please describe your organization's primary methods or processes for facilitatingtechnology transfer (please identify the type of technology transfer involved using the listprovided above).
B. Describe the most serious barriers you've encountered (please identify the type oftechnology transfer involved).
III. Incentives for supporting technology transfer
A. Does your organization offer monetary rewards for submission of patent claims orgranting of patents? Yes / No
How effective do you believe them to be?
69
B. Does your organization provide recognition and/or rewards for time and effort spent ontechnology transfer? Yes / No
How effective do you believe them to be?
C. What factors do you, as a transferor or transferee of technology, feel are important toyour individual willingness to contribute time and effort to technology transfer?
IV. Measuring the effectiveness of technology transfer
A. Are you aware of any metrics to assess the success or effectiveness of technologytransfer? Yes / No
If yes, please describe them:
B. What do you see as the major problems associated with measuring the success oreffectiveness of technology transfer?
V. What other approaches can we learn from?
A. What methods or processes (described above) do you consider particularly effectivefor the transfer of technology (please identify the type of technology transfer involved)and why?
B. Where else should we look for relevant best practices in the transfer of technology?
May we follow up with you if we have any questions? Yes / No
70
The on-line technology transfer questionnaire described above allowed many individuals fromall organizations and roles to comment on many aspects of technology transfer. This portion ofthis appendix summarizes comments on two of the more important issues—perspectives onserious barriers to technology transfer and effective methods for technology transfer.
The comments are grouped by affiliation, i.e., college/university, federal laboratory/FFRDC,large or small corporations, nonprofit organizations, and the U.S. government. The categories ofsurvey responses listed here are based on the responses to Table E.1.
Key to Categories of Survey Responses
a Ideas and mentors
bIntellectual property awareness and capturing
intellectual property
c Institutional incentives and culture
d Students
e Intellectual property administration
fAssessing the value of research and intellectual
property portfolio management
g Project incubation/maturation
hLicensing intellectual property--culture,
management, and alignment
i Marketing inventions, innovations, and technologies
j Education
71
Table E.1
Survey Responses by Category
Effective Methods Serious Barriers
(Responses to question V(A) of survey) (responses to question II(B) of survey)
Affiliation Comments Category Comments Category
College/University
User-friendly, efficient technologytransfer office with highly competentstaff that can effectively serve, assist,and educate the faculty and students tofacilitate the transfer of their ideasfrom bench to market
e
Early-stage universityinventions/discoveries that have anypotential for commercialization requiredevelopment investments to reachmarketable status. These pre-seedfunds are generally not available frompublic or private sources. g
!
A core group or critical mass of highlycreative and entrepreneurial facultywho are astute and willing to workwithin the university guidelines.
c, j
Deficiencies in the Office ofTechnology Transfer, which simplylacks enough staff to find theappropriate industry contact that mightenable the transfer of technologies. e, h
!
Exceptional negotiation skills withinthe technology transfer office tostructure and conclude all businessdeals.
e
The lack of resources to invest in the"development" of new discoveries.Most university discoveries are veryearly stage, and because of theacademic imperative to publish aresubmitted as provisional patentapplications at the very earliest point ofdiscovery so that the faculty membercan publish a paper disclosing theinvention. What we have found,however, is that it is then quite difficultto find funding to build a prototype andprovide a real proof of concept.Universities do not have these kinds ofinvestment funds, and it seems thatmany promising ideas probably diebecause of this lack of resources.
g
72
because of this lack of resources.
!
A university President who issupportive of this effort and has aclear understanding of what works andwhat does not work within hisuniversity.
c
Naiveté and lack of knowledge ofuniversity researchers in this field, yetmany believe they "know it all" and arenot willing to devote the time tobecome educated, while aspiring forpatents and spin-off companies. b
!
Intellectual property mapping toassess opportunities.
f
Negotiating agreements with largecorporations interested in sponsoringresearch with modest funds andexpecting to own any and allintellectual property in the field ofresearch. h
!
For Biotech: Get a patentabilityopinion to see what might dominatethe invention and whether it has agood chance of being developed. Wedo NOT do freedom-to-operateassessments because we think that isthe duty of the licensee. The lattercould create some liability for theuniversity also if we were to use it asan incentive for the company tolicense a technology. f, h
Conflict issues are serious when aninventor or entrepreneur, who is auniversity faculty member, does notrecognize or accept the boundariesbetween his spin-off company interestsand his university obligations.
c
!
We use faculty advisory committeemade up of people who have someknowledge of the tech transfer process. . . this works for some institutions ifthe volume of disclosures to beprocessed is manageable. b, f
Identifying market opportunitiesrequires experienced personnel
e, i
73
!
(1) Success is enhanced if the inventoris an effective champion and advocatefor the technology, i.e., articulate,aggressive, receptive to contact fromcompanies, but not possessive.(2) For early stage technologies, acombination of licensing andsponsored research is often critical tothe successful commercialization. c, h, i
University politics
c
!
Institutional seed grants for new ideasand incubators for development ofnew ideas are very helpful.
a, c
It's difficult to get firms to respondunless we have a lead in contacting aspecific research scientist who knowsour faculty researcher. Even then, toget a response for the businessdeveloper is sometimes not easy. i
!
Having good university relationshipwith companies that may have aninterest in new and developingtechnologies.
e, h
We want a way to find out the needsthat companies have (they sometimesguard that information closely), thensee if our tech portfolio relates to thatneed. Making the match between theones who have technology versus thosewho need it is a challenge. i
!
!
!
Biotech is often very early stage, withlots of development to be done beforeit reaches commercial reality, hence it'svery difficult to place a value on it andto do pre-market research. f, g, i
!
!
!
Reach-through provisions in materialtransfer agreements; assignmentrequirements of intellectual property insponsored research agreements e, h
!
!
!
Lack of adequate staffing resources toprovide the evaluation, assessment,education and service necessary tobridge the cultures of industry anduniversities and make the case-specificarrangements that are necessary toachieve the desired results whilesatisfying the mission and objectives ofboth sides.
j
74
both sides.
!
!
!
The mixed signals coming from everylevel of government about university-industry relations. Is it good or bad? Isit a conflict or is it necessary to transferresults? Etc. The uncertainty ofindividual administrators and facultyleads to confusion, slow deal making,and paralysis in some cases. f, h, c
!!
!
Slowness of negotiation MTA or otheragreements between University andcompany. e, h
!
!
!
Office is generally slow and does nothave a good understanding of thescience. Patenting issues are out-sourced and several of the firms usedhave not been particularly good. e, h
FederalLaboratories/FFRDC
Licensing agreements…we are giventhe greatest flexibility in negotiatingterms and conditions of theseagreements.
h
Can't take equity in startups;researchers' ability to consult isstatutorily limited; researchers can'ttake "entrepreneurial leave" to help acompany get started in thecommercialization of a technologyinvented in the lab. c
!
The MBA Intern program has beeneffective in helping us to evaluatetechnology for commercial potential.It has also identified business talentdirectly relevant to technology transferprograms such as entrepreneurialdevelopment and training, businessplanning, market assessments, andbusiness formation. The technologycommercialization executives workingclosely with the intellectual propertycoordinators in the technical divisionsof the Laboratory have been effectivein stimulating and identifying newintellectual property, which feeds allour other technology transferprocesses.
e, f, i
Requirement to advertise availability ofinventions for licensing for 90 dayshampers ability to move quickly.
e
75
closely with the intellectual propertycoordinators in the technical divisionsof the Laboratory have been effectivein stimulating and identifying newintellectual property, which feeds allour other technology transferprocesses.
!
Our Strategic Partnership Program hasbeen effective in identifying long-term, mutually beneficial partnershipsthat stimulate repeat business fortechnology transfer. Our IndustrialFellows Program sends Laboratorystaff to strategic partner companies tofurther develop these types ofrelationships. a
insufficient resources directed atmarketing of technologies to potentialpartners
i
!
Our internal training programs inintellectual property management,entrepreneurships, andcommercialization have identifiedmany new internal clients andtechnologies for us to transfer. Thenew Technology Maturation Fund willbe very important in movingtechnology development closer towardcommercial applications. Ourcooperation with the Los AlamosResearch Park supports both ourcollaborative R&D goals with partnersas well as our new business start-upobjectives for the region. Finally wehave an external advisory boardcomposed of experts from academia,industry, other federal labs, andregional business developmentorganizations, that helps us developand implement our programs at theLaboratory. j, b
Lack of funding to bring conceptualtechnologies to working prototypestage
g
76
!
We have had the most success withour Work For Others program becausethe partner provides all of the fundingto support the effort and licensing.There has not been any funding tosupport technology transfer effortsfrom the DOE in many years. g
Uncooperative or unavailable inventors
c
!!
!No management support for techtransfer efforts c
!!
!Cumbersome DOE requirements forlicensing agreements e
!
!
!
Lack of department funding to pay fortechnologies and to pay fortechnologist’s time for participation intech transfer program c
!
!
!
The real or apparent economicdownturn is discouraging companiesfrom investing in TT (technologytransfer) from national laboratories.
other(economy)
!!
!DOE boilerplate TT agreements do notallow sufficient room for negotiation. e
!
!
!
The biggest barrier to technologycommercialization is the lack offunding to develop a raw invention forcommercial applications. Few DOEprograms have the mission requirementto transfer technology beyond directmission applications to othercommercial applications. This leads tomany DOE-funded inventions beingstranded in an undeveloped andimmature state that does not attractcommercial interest. Industry asks forfurther development and demonstrationto reduce the risk in unproventechnologies. g
77
!
!
!
Another major barrier we always faceis time to negotiate and executetechnology transfer agreements withindustry. Many of these agreementsmust be approved by the DOE.Delegation of approval to thelaboratory would speed time tocomplete agreements. The "U.S.Competitiveness Clause" in DOECRADAs needs to be reviewed in lightof the large number of multinationalbusinesses doing business in the U.S. e, h
Large Corporations !!
The technology is often too immature.Its application and business value hasnot been determined precisely enough. g, f
!!
!Disparity between legal representativeson priorities e, h
Small Corporations
Moving technology from theuniversity to the public space.Knowledgeable people at theuniversity and public sector. Oneneeds to understand the end use of thetechnology (not to pursue somethingjust because it's new technology).There must be an end game, a productwhich will either improve or assist theend users. f, h, i
Usual barriers involve the universityTT office. There is no consistentprocess from one university to theanother. Additionally, there areuniversities on the West Coast whodon't have qualified personnel runningtheir transfer office thus causing delaysand unnecessary paperwork.
e, h
!
!
!
Lack of organizational leadership andsupport for doing tech transfer.Problems with organizational culturesupporting tech transfer amongresearch faculty or staff. c
!!
!Lack of understanding of the true valueof new inventions. b
!!
!
Lack of resources to support veryearly-stage, high-risk, proof-of-conceptresearch on new inventions g
78
!
!
!
Conflicting attitudes and expectation ofthe value of tech transfer on the part ofvarious stakeholders: Researchers,Leaders of research organizations,Economic development interests,Federal research managers, Businesses. i, f
!
!
!
Informal and formal dissemination oftechnology--communication oftechnology (via papers, presentations)not written or formatted by thetransferor in a way which is easilyunderstood and applied by thetransferee (e.g. an academic paperwhich describes an interestingtechnical development but not itsimplications for practice). b
US Nonprofit
Organizational Effectiveness:partnering practices to build the willof the partners to mutually drivesuccess…and to weed out the likelyunsuccessful partnerships beforewasting energy on them. j, h
Time required to initiate longer-termagreements. Funding directives fromCongress truncating longer-term workearly.
e, h
!!
!Unrealistic valuations of existing andexpected IP (intellectual property). f
!
!
!
Cultural differences toward urgencyaround milestones. Partnershipsmandated to carry social baggagerequiring burdensome reports and otherpaperwork. c
!
!
!
Lack of control over use of IP byothers which may lead to deep-pocketliability by partners uninvolved withthe disputed application. h
!
!
!
Identifying methodology to move frominformal to formal relationship with thefederal government in anoncompetitive bid format. e, h
79
U.S. Government
It seems to me that the people who aredeveloping technology come toWashington to get support for R&Dand help in marketing new products.There is no agency or group availableto serve as a clearinghouse for newtechnology. Developers of technologydon't know how to get funding pr howto market their products and thegovernment agencies that need thetechnology don't always know whereto go to get the products they need. Itappears to me that there is a need forsomeone to match up the providers oftechnology with the users, thecompanies looking for new products,and venture capitalists who might beinterested in funding newdevelopments and products. h, i
Federal conflict of interest statuesmake it difficult for governmentemployee inventors to becomeinvolved in commercialization of theirinventions.
c
!
(1) Information Support Systemsupports researchers, patent advisorsand tech transfer marketing specialist;(2) Transferring Technology forIndustry process described above islabor-intensive, but it is a way ofidentifying as many potential solutionsas possible. It gives the industry theopportunity to review the potentialsolutions and select the mostappropriate technology based on therequirements. i
Internal politics of the organizationsaffected every project.
c
!
!
!
Economics--the industry's bottom line.The technology could improve thefarmers' income or be moreenvironmentally friendly, but if itdidn't improve the bottom line for themanufacturer, the technology didn't gettransferred and commercialized.
f,
*New(Monetary valueversussocialbenefit)
80
Other
As part of its effort to identify barriersto tech transfer, the FLC prepared andsubmitted an issue paper to the WhiteHouse OSTP regarding the need toreform the federal innovation systemand provide the necessary authorityfor mission-oriented federal labs to beable to work with the network ofuniversity-based RehabilitationEngineering Research Centers, whichdevelop assistive technologies for theelderly and persons with disabilities.We also utilize the services of theFLC National Advisory Council(NAC), a committee composed ofdiverse groups of professionalindividuals from industry, academia,government, and nationalassociations...that facilitate theutilization of technologies developedat federal labs by suggesting methodsand practices that accelerate thetransfer of knowledge. They are alsoinvolved in developing andimplementing our Strategic Plan, aswell as recommending changes andimprovements. e, h, i
Raising money to fund startupcompanies based on university or labtechnology.
f, g
!
The use of Memorandums ofAgreements (MOAs) are many timesmore effective technology transferinstruments that CRADAs. Mutualexchange ofdata/information/technology can bemore easily accomplished through theuse of MOAs. h
Cost of U.S. Patent filing andinadequate budgets.
f
!
Alliances and CRADAs work whenthey are properly negotiated andadministered. They could be mademore effective if they were used tospin out companies, involving labemployees from the Lab. f, h
Support and participation by academicsin invention disclosure.
b, c
81
!
Public databases are probably the bestexample. Genbank and its associatedsearch tools have a value to thescientific community that isimmeasurable and would beimpossible to do without. Perhapscreation of public storage anddissemination facilities for reagents,tools, techniques, patients, etc., wouldbe established. In this case, aninvestigator with a unique materialcould simply supply this to a centralrepository and public access would beassured with no additional burden onthe investigator.
a, c
The most serious barriers togovernment technology transfer is thewithholding of the best terms availableto a licensee, notably the commercialexceptions clause that assures that alicensee's investment will not bejeopardized by having to grant accessto its background patents to a potentialcompetitor. Many negotiations havebeen turned sour when this provision isintroduced late after much anxiety onthe part of the licensee. Since it is aninevitable concession, it should beformalized and offered as part of thelicensing package in the standardlanguage up front. I believe this willminimize the time in negotiations, too. h
!
!
!
The PRIMARY barrier to effectivenesshas been internal political resistancedue to turf battles and perceived threatsto established spheres of influence. e, f, h
!
!
!
As a requestor, the most commonbarrier I have experienced is ignoringof requests by other scientists, followedby requirements for completion ofMTAs that cannot be approved by ourinstitution due to restrictions.Moreover, many of these MTAs causeproblems with other reagents already inthe lab from other investigators havingtheir own MTAs so that "third party"agreements have to be negotiated thattake months or years to complete. As asupplier, the survey process before anMTA is issued is often more troublethan its worth so I often just send therequested materials and ask therecipient not to send it to anyone elsewithout permission. This usuallyworks just fine.
a(transferofmaterialbetweenlabs tofosteracademicresearch)
83
Appendix F. Excerpted Comments from the December 12,2002, Forum
During the December 12, 2002, PCAST Technology Transfer Forum, the afternoon portion ofthe agenda was reserved for open public comments and an open discussion. This allowedattendees the opportunity to raise issues on any aspect of technology transfer. A recording of thesessions allowed a transcript to be made. This appendix presents excerpted comments from theafternoon open sessions. They are grouped by general category (i.e., Serious Barriers; EffectiveMethods; Primary Methods; Metrics; and Other), and are then further grouped by generalaffiliation (i.e., Universities, Large Corporations, U.S. Government, etc.). Because some entriesapply to more than one category, they may appear more than once.
Serious Barriers to Technology Transfer: Concerns, Suggestions, andRecommendations
Colleges/Universities
ß What we are finding nowadays is that when we are starting with radically new technology, notimprovements to known ways of doing things, that the most common method nowadays is astart-up founded by the inventor, sure, and often a graduate student, being the very best form oftechnology transfer. But then what happens? And this is happening in biotechnology, nanotechnology, you name it. Then the little company steps up the technology, starts to identify thekiller applications, and forms the strategic alliances with the large companies. And this processhas been really growing in the last eight or nine years. The large companies having a reluctanceto take a great risk that will be very long-term, because of the Stock Market. The risk is beingtaken by the high-risk venture capital. And then small companies are becoming the bridge to thelarge company. And I don't think anybody has been studying that much into the new form of thetransfer that I think is becoming critical in the really cutting-edge technologies.
ß But when I talk about technology transfer, licensing out start-ups, you can't license paper forearly stage technologies. The inventors must be involved to sell the vision. The problem, and Idon't have an easy answer with the federal labs is that people do not have consulting rights.
ß There was a conflict in the minds of the senior management of the GOCO [federal laboratory]whether they wanted to encourage technology transfer towards the national effort of encouragingtechnology transfer, or whether they were scared to death, because a successful start-up drainedsome of their best, brightest, youngest, most innovative people out of the labs. It's a dreadfultrade-off for the manager of a high tech laboratory. The universities solved it by -- not solved it,but at least partially solved it, first of all, because they have the consulting privileges, which I
84
don't think is a possible solution. And so it can be a continuing involvement between theinventor and the technology transfer. And second, universities solved it by leaves of absence.So I would encourage this [for federal laboratories].
ß We need a national dialog on role definition.
ß It is true that the significance of background inventions, and the blocking effect that they mighthave on more recent collaborations, have been recognized as a problem that was not on ourscreen maybe five years ago.
ß The high cost of licensing university technologies.
ß So even within the universities, the different objectives have different importance acrossdifferent groups. Secondly, it's the case that very few technologies, and even fewer universities,make a lot of money. Most technologies earn small, read zero, license income. If you reallyconsider license income as the primary motivation for universities in technology transfer, then ifyou look at the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) data, you can easilymake the case that most of these guys ought to shut down their offices. They simply are losingmoney. That does mean this is not something they ought to be engaged in. If profits were theonly thing, they ought to shut down.
ß It depends on having a technology transfer office that can rapidly respond if it wants to file ornot. We, as a matter of policy, will not ask our faculty, particularly our graduate students, whoneed it for their careers, to delay publication.
ß That means if they come to us, we have to make the decision very fast. You are not going tobe able to do a full market survey to justify it. This is where one change in patent law, theprovisional filings, could have an effect. Because if it were somewhat less expensive to say,okay, we're going to do it.
ß We were talking about incentives to get inventors, scientists at the federal labs involved in thetechnology transfer process. There is no corresponding system [to universities] within thegovernment and federal laboratory system, which is likely to take the. . .one day a week thatfaculty at the universities enjoy. And without it, it is a frustrating exercise at the federal labs,because there is no incentive for the scientists to get involved in the same way.
ß In the university environment, we are under conflict of interest requirements to prove that thereis no distortion of the scientific data, because some faculty member may have industryconnections, and may use those as an incentive to maybe skew what he or she is providing underfederal funding.
ß I have had the opportunity to work for a world intellectual property organization, and they aremaking many initiatives to try to streamline everything from harmonization issues, to theelectronic filing, to getting rid of the translations. And we sometimes tend to be the slow party interms of supporting those initiatives. And I think it's important to reduce those costs and thosebarriers, so we can have broader coverage, and more cost-effective coverage.
85
Federal Laboratories
ß I think there is a culture by the inventors or the developers as well, in addition to thetimeframe, that makes a difference between those groups in how they participate in thetechnology transfer process. And the individual who is trying to be a facilitator for a lot ofpeople, the ability of the inventor or the generator to help is really critical.
ß The federal labs may look at technology transfer as a two-way street. They are looking forbenefit of technology coming back to the labs as well. But about the last 12, 14 years theDefense Department particularly has been trying to emphasize the ability to transfer commercialtechnologies into the defense lab system, because they feel that they don't necessarily have thehuman technology capability or the fiscal resources to build everything on their dollars.
ß One of the things that oftentimes causes stumbling is around intellectual property…it can't justbe given away for free. If you give it away for free, and give it to everybody, then it becomes ofno advantage to anyone. And usually it will just be left on the table. … you need to actually havesomebody who is going to, through some licensing or ownership process, have some form ofprivileged position, or they won't invest the dollars that it takes to take earlier-stage research andput it through the development cycle, and bring it to the marketplace to do that.
ß Indemnity has been another thing that people have stumbled over in the past. … there is a lot ofconfusion over exactly what indemnity means, and who gets indemnified for what. And in mostcases, the lawyers eventually sort that out on the two sides, but it is something that causes somedifficulty.
ß Time is another problem that we have for a number of different reasons. One is all thedifferent stages that you have to go through, various approvals. It takes time. There is a timefactor that is tied up with the anti-competition and fairness of opportunity clauses.
ß In the private sector they are not used to prepaying for work…. the pre-funding requirementalways requires some dancing and footwork to try to make it as palatable as [possible].
ß Maybe what the nation needs to consider in those orphan industries where there is public goodto be served is some form of public-private partnership that will fill that development fundinggap, that the venture capital community probably wouldn't step into, because they don't how toreach the very small, segmented markets for some of these kinds of technologies.
ß In fact, what throttles even consulting at these laboratories is notions of conflict of interest.And the reason is that people can't own equity; even though our laboratory owns equity incompanies, individuals do not, nor can they.
ßAn individual, an employee of the laboratory, supposedly has the principal allegiance to thatlaboratory and to the U.S. government through that lab. But they are now under the position ofholding equity in a company. And the fear is that now when this person makes a decision aboutwhere they are going to file IP, or how they might do something, they will do it in a way that willfavor their own personal interest in that private company, drive up the value of the stock, if you
86
will, and do that to the detriment of the United States government. That's ultimately what's thecore of the fear.
ßThe labs have difficulty sometimes understanding the needs for technology from non-traditionalsources. For example, the agriculture labs have worked for decades in biotechnology. That weare just now starting to understand the potential of biosensors for us in agricultural applications.
ßIndustry doesn't know how to reach into the federal lab system. We hear this continuously inthe context that a lab is not just research and development, it's not the results of research anddevelopment, it's also the people. It's the facilities. It's the equipment.
ßThere was a comment made about perhaps the labs or the universities are generating capital togo back into the laboratory from the royalties. And I wanted to point out -- and that is maybeone of the reasons why it is harder, or they don't want to work with industry.
But in reality it is very clear in the law what those royalty payments are used for, and how it canbe used. So industry does not need to be concerned that it is generating royalties back into alaboratory. It's very clear how those funds can be utilized.
Large Corporations
ß We are very interested in technology transfer from universities or national labs, but we are arelatively small player in that we belong to the Industrial Research Institute. Many companiesare relatively small players. And the reason is technology transfer from national labs oruniversities to industry is not always easy. And we do initiate lots of discussions, and lots ofthose are non-starters. And those are related to requirements in agreements. Those are related toIT rights or licensing terms, royalty sharing, exclusivity, indemnity -- that's a big thing -- andspeed to reach an agreement, and then a different interpretation by labs. Why do they want totransfer technology to industry? Those are things that we have problems with.
ß Is the objective generating cash flow to universities or national labs? If that's the objective offederal research and development, I think that's not the right thing to do.
ß We need to do more to educate the public, especially patients and consumers about the benefitsof technology transfer…. through congressional oversight, we must also educate policymakers inboth the executive and the legislative branches. Metrics are an important part of this process.
ß I think it is a mistake to think that all industry loves the inventor [a lot]. Because in ourcompany, we are a big company, but we reward inventors with hundreds of dollars. It's notthousands or millions of dollars, even an invention that makes millions and millions of dollars.
Small Corporations
ß What happened to us, and which I think will kind of discourage other venture capitalists wasreally a timing issue. We went in, and from first meeting in introducing the idea and the team
87
and hiring a CEO who was formerly a director at NASA, we had a series of meetings andsubmeetings, and we worked our way down from the director of the lab, all the way down to thepeople who really are the founders of the technology.
And unfortunately for us, that process took about six and a half months. And I think we heardtoday some comments on the venture capital industry, and successful commercialization is reallyabout timing. And so what we found in going through all the machinations and the submissionsof paperwork and the series of meetings, was that this company, One company essentiallymissed the market opportunity to develop and commercialize some otherwise fantastictechnology due the bureaucracy involved in the commercialization process -- putting together aCRADA agreement.
ß We really didn't see that culture at the lowest levels. We got all green lights at the top levels, atthe lab director levels. But when it comes down to working with the individual projectmanagers, at the end of the day it was more work for them. They didn't see the incentive interms of career advancement or monetary gain, as you might see dealing with a commercialpartner.
And we were asking them for extra time, working after hours, this sort of thing, to accomplish acommercial goal, which might be legislated, but really had kind of a negative impact on their dayto day life.
U.S. Nonprofits
ß Without an unexclusive license, which in essence provides freedom to use and practice theresulting research, companies would be unwilling to sponsor university research with privatedollars.
ß The position that a lot of companies take is that it's unfair to have to pay once for the research,and then all the sudden have to come back and pay a second time for an invention that wouldn'thave been created but for the private dollars that went to that research. You know, I think aresearch sponsor expects to be able to use the research that they pay for, and this appears to us tobe a normal market expectation.
ß The interest of private industry sponsors who support university research, and letting themutilize commercialized research results should be protected, again, or else there will be noincentive for the private sector to continue sponsoring university research.
ß Bayh-Dole is sometimes being applied unreasonably in situations in which there is little or nofederal sponsorship of university research. And even in cases where the government providesmost of the funding, industry sponsors by virtue of paying at least part of the research, havesome interest and some rights in the results. And we basically are of the opinion thatimplementations of Bayh-Dole--that may prevent industry sponsors from securing non-exclusive,royalty-free access to IP--that very research they sponsor will deny industrial sponsors access towhat they believe they paid for, and will lead to more conflict between universities and industry.
88
ß Bayh-Dole should be applied in cases where the federal government is the sole researchsponsor. That's the case for which Bayh-Dole was crafted. When the government is less thanthe sole research sponsor, then we believe there may be a need for some other means, as far asprotecting the interests of private sponsors.
ß Negotiation delays or those start-up delays in getting a contract in place can be very significantas far as a disadvantage to time to market. And that can make or break a product.
U.S. Government
ß In short, it is clear that the wealth of nations is changing. While prior centuries weredominated by nations with superior industrial or agricultural capabilities, the Information Age isgoing to reward new competencies and strengths. Innovative capacity is now clearly the keydriver of future national prosperity.
ß First, we believe we need to better understand the unprecedented global competition forresearch and innovators. A lot has changed since 1980, not just universities and labs and othersbetter understanding Bayh-Dole. The Cold War is over, and a lot of the global realities andopportunities for business have changed. American innovators are moving cutting-edge researchoffshore to foreign labs and universities that offer newer facilities, lower costs, highly talentedpeople, and/or simpler and more favorable intellectual property arrangements.
ß One of our problems is that we are not really able to cogently explain what we do.
ß I would urge you to make important discriminating points between agencies, type of funding,type of subject matter. I think it's a giant mistake to have a report about technology transfer thatcompares and pushes together NIH and federal labs. They are different. You should just dealwith them as different subjects, and have different recommendations for each one.
ß Complexity is the enemy of execution. To the extent that you have problems in theimplementation of technology transfer, most of them are either a function of misalignmentbetween agency mission, or people who don't understand what they are doing, because the lawsand regulations are too complicated. One solution to that is to try and align agency missions andmanagement accountability around technology transfer, and have metrics that apply to individualsenior managers, including cabinet secretaries. They tend not to be around very long, but at leastthey are senior managers.
ß The biggest challenge of the federal government today is how do you do technology transfer ina new cabinet level department? Stated another way, what kind of biodefense industry orcounterterrorism measure industry do we want or deserve in the United States?
No one has asked or effectively answered that question.
89
We determine whether to seek intellectual property protection on basically five criteria. Andthese include first of all, the scope of the invention and the market size. And again, inagriculture we are dealing with a lot of small, narrow-margin operations.
The degree of commercial interest is the second criterion. The degree of additional research anddevelopment that is necessary to commercialize this technology. Enforceability of the idea. Isthis a process that no one is going to be able to determine whether or not you have used thistechnology?
And the final criterion that we deem to be probably the most important, and that is whetherintellectual property protection is necessary to transfer the technology. If it isn't, we're not goingto waste our time with it. We are going to make the public release.
ß Venture capital has seemed to have dried up. We do preferentially license to small businesses.They are risk takers. They need that capital influx typically to move things forward. And thathas had an impact this past year.
ß Lack of a profitable market. We have some terrific solutions to some of the environmentalpollution or environmental remediation problems of this century. We researched these for publicgood. But in the absence of mandatory compliance, there is no marketplace to profitably applythe technologies.
ß Lack of authority to protect, and therefore to manage distribution. The issue is software, andthe fact that we are prohibited from copyrighting and licensing federally developed software…Patents aren't appropriate, because they are too costly, and they are 20 years of exclusivity thatreally exceeds the useful life of rapidly evolving software technology. Yet, without our ability tocopyright and license to provide IP protection and exclusivity, companies can't afford to developand refine the software with the assistance of federal scientists.
Unknown Affiliation
ß Regarding the start-up phenomenon, and how we see that being the initial vehicle forcommercialization of new technology, particularly disruptive or revolutionary technologies. Andwhat we basically see . . . the reason for that is larger companies have a threshold regarding the"make" versus "buy" equation. A lot of times they can't justify the investment it requires tocommercialize relatively immature technologies. So they will wait for a start-up company to getthe technology to a certain point, and then they will either merge or have a business alliance ordevelop a relationship, or in some cases, buy the product. So you see that as an incubator-typeperiod for a lot of these technologies. That is generally for revolutionary-type technologies thatare not as mature.
You also see another mode where you have more applied research that generally has moreindustry involvement such as improvements on existing technologies, or extending currenttechnologies to their ultimate limit. And in that particular role, you see a lot more directcommercialization through some of the larger companies, because the research is more applied to
90
their interests, and they can actually justify making the smaller business investment, andcommercialize those companies directly.
So I just would like to point out that it's a complex landscape, and there is more than one modeout there as far as how technology gets commercialized.
ß University research is cheap. Firms do not pay full overhead costs. So even when they comeback and pay a second time, I think in many cases that's risk shared. They don't pay until it getsto a certain point.
The second reason to go to universities, and it was raised here, is that university professors oftenhave very specialized knowledge, which is not internal to the firm. So they can't get itsomewhere else…. one of the hardest things firms have to deal with in dealing with universitiesis understanding university culture. And that is one of the real danger signals.
If a firm goes in not understanding the way a university operates, in part this notion ofdissemination of knowledge, and the fact that the goals within universities are not simply profits.They are multifaceted. There are many, many goals. If they don't understand that, that is arecipe for disaster in a licensing session.
ß It suggests some alignment questions. In the private sector, if you are in a businessdevelopment context, and your CEO says you're supposed to obtain $50 million for out-licensinga portfolio of products, that's your business goal. There are very few people in the federalgovernment who have a similar mission or management objective.
ß Licensing, or having intellectual property to license is going to vary from industry to industry.So if you just look at the life science industry, the pharmaceutical industry this year will spend$31 billion on research and development. That's a lot of money.
They can't develop all those products, so they have to have an aggressive licensing platform.The impediments are not so much having great technology. It's having money that [will makeyou] willing to take the risk on the development part of it, because it costs $80 million onaverage to create a new pharmaceutical product. It is very risky, very expensive, and very fewpeople have the opportunity to do that.
So there is this kind of reverse thing going on, which is small biotechnology companies whomight want to out-license their product, put them together, and develop something. They canprobably take the roll of the dice once, develop a product, and then try and license it back.
ß Inventions are all different. They vary individually within a technology area. They vary acrosstechnology areas. And it really depends on a number of factors. Those are a couple. Inaddition, it is a function of how broad a particular patentable invention is that arises in aparticular situation.
ß Education is so important, to train our scientists and our managers not to disclose this stuffincidentally. It can kill the rights and totally torpedo commercialization.
91
ß A bill was introduced earlier this year, or maybe it was last year in the Senate. It was to fundSBIR companies to file foreign patent applications. In other words, the cost of the foreign patentapplications was seen as a policy issue affecting small companies disproportionately.
And the way it was going to be set up is a fund that the Small Business Administration wasgoing to be accountable for, a revolving fund. That companies could apply for a one-time grantfor funds to file their foreign patent applications.
ß There is another type of conflict of interest. It's organizational conflict of interest, which Iwould also like to put on the table for you to consider, especially in the context of the need towork rapidly with companies to commercialize and implement results in homeland securityprograms.
ß We really need to be looking at this in an international context, because universities, as well asindustry, as you pointed out, are really in an international market. And sometimes we arelooking at our laws and policies as though we have just a unified domestic market.
ß Again, coming as an investor and a developer of a technology, we need a market space. Ourcontemporaries in Europe, they are learning from our mistakes. They are learning from theroadblocks and hurdles that have been put in place in front of the investor or the entrepreneur.
ß The original language that was in place, which was interpreted very rigorously in its early days,said that unless the product was substantially manufactured in the U.S., it wouldn't be a deal. Ifit was a foreign company, it wouldn't be a deal.
And what has happened over time is that position has been interpreted a little bit more liberallyas to what substantially manufacturing means. And there have been a few cases where they said,okay, it's very obviously a foreign-owned company, a Siemens, that if they are going to make itin the U.S., at least for the first five years or so, it is okay.
But there are still lots of barriers in place for the laboratories to partner with the company whenthere is some ambiguity over where it's going to be made, and what the ownership of thecompany is.
Effective Methods
Colleges/Universities
ß And though people may not always see eye to eye on all matters, I think overall this Bayh-Doleand Stevenson-Wydler framework has been tremendously successful.
ß Bayh-Dole is working. The statistics all show it.
92
ß Another player is the interaction between the community that learns as a whole how to doentrepreneurial activities and technology transfer, and the sources, the universities, federal labs,etc. That is a long process, but it should not be discounted.
ß In the UK … they bring their companies within the university, and incubate them within [theuniversity], write the business plans, let them use the labs, even put money in them.
ß Once you have worked it through, it is very easy the second and third time. …It is a learningcurve on the part of individual companies as they learn to work with universities, and why theyare different than industry. But . . . intelligently crafted agreements can satisfy both sides.
ß Most of these faculty, or a lot of them, want to go back to the lab and work on something else.So, one of the things that we found is important to get them to cooperate is the possibility ofroyalty income, some kind of contingent payments, that they are only going to get these funds ifit's successful.
ß Your objective here was best practices within the technology transfer community. One of thethings we are seeing in intellectual property management is this idea of mapping, intellectualproperty mapping, as well as ideation techniques, and those kind of things.
Federal Laboratories
ß If you take a look at the vehicles that the laboratories have at their disposal, it goes all the wayfrom truly partnering with other groups in terms of how you work, CRADAs being the mostcommon one… More recently, there has been greater interest in so-called work for othersagreements… They are a little bit easier I think, for most industries' perspective as an agreementto execute, than a CRADA. And the differences between them are actually rather minor, butthose continue to be relatively popular vehicles.
ß We came up with a clever idea a few years, and approached the legislature about rebating partof our state tax back, and earmarking those dollars for partnering with small companies thatneeded help. And that has been a marvelously successful program, and it looks like it isprobably due to grow in the future.
Licensing has become very popular recently. There have been something on the order of 700licenses that have been written. There was a difference in terms of how these are done, and thiswill resonant with a comment some of the other folks have made earlier. Some licenses go tovery large companies. Those are relatively straightforward, and they tend to be incrementalkinds of technologies… The more revolutionary things, the disruptive technologies typically goto spin out companies.
ß A handful of years ago a very popular tool in the private sector was so-called technologymining, where they would look for IP that wasn't core to their business, and say, well, there's away to monetize it.
93
And although it might be useful for building satellites for the Air Force, we can also buildsomething to control traffic flow or whatever. And they would spin it out, and they would try tomonetize that IP.
They still do that on occasion, but there has been a real shift toward another term that LockheedMartin uses. It's enterprise venturing -- mission-centered venturing is the term that they use.And the idea there is actually more like what a lab like a Los Alamos or a Sandia would do,where you actually try to commercialize IP in a way that it allows you to mature technology backto the benefit of the core mission of that company.
U.S. Government
ß Protecting IP is essential to achieve technology transfer when one of two things occurs.
First of all, if there remains an expensive development step and/or a requirement for regulatoryapproval, and that is often the case in the transgenic plant technology, new pesticide, animaldisease vaccine. And the private sector licensee has to be able to recover the cost of thedevelopment.
And secondly, if it is a niche market, and the economics of development require that only one ora few companies might participate in that market in order to recover the cost of development.Those are the conditions that we will typically use to identify IP to be protected.
ß There are really two key components to the success in this area [CRADAs]. The first is thatwe have technology transfer coordinators. These are eight individuals, typically senior scientistswho have a lot of experience… They are geographically dispersed… And in essence, these arefield intelligence officers. And on a daily basis, they are the ones that are interacting with thefederal scientists, with the customers and the stakeholders, with the private sector, and with theindustries, and also with the universities. They are the ones that help the scientists identify theappropriate partnerships, and they negotiate the CRADAs.
Unknown Affiliation
ß There is this conflict of interest statute, and it's something we have that you people in mostuniversities and industry don't have, because we are blessed with inspectors general (IGs). Andthe IGs whole job is go around looking for somebody to put in jail. And frankly, inventorsmaking money off of their inventions are very good targets, and they know this, and it hashappened to people. And those stories get out and spread, and that puts a chill on things like younever saw.
So if you want to find a problem somewhere, it's in the philosophy of being a public servant inthe first place, and what that means as far as serving the public, as opposed to even in stateuniversities now. How they aren't violating state conflict of interest laws, I have never been ableto figure out.
94
ß One of the attractions for our inventors to participate in commercialization of technologiesthrough the start-up company is the opportunity to participate in the wealth creation of thecompany by being paid … in equity. And I don't know that that exists at the GOGOs.
ß If you look at it as a process from idea through commercial product, the more continuity youcan build between the stages in the process, the more successful you can be. And so the ultimatedeliverer of that technology needs to be involved in the program design to avoid thesedisconnects.
ß I just recently learned that Canada, in their whole national research structure, they areencouraging all of their researchers to even go out and to create spin-off companies by trainingthem in business, and giving them leave of absence for a couple of years, with the idea that theycan come back if it is not successful. Because most companies aren't successful.
Primary Methods
Federal Laboratories
ß The royalty dollars that come back into the laboratory … But the use of those funds is toreinvest in research back in the laboratory. . . . We earmark them inside of the laboratory, towardtechnologies that we think we can use to partner with industry to bring in the next generation oftechnology into the marketplace.
ß There are sometimes things we just turn loose, period. The times when you don't just turn itloose, period, is where no one will pursue it. It is just turned loose in the open market, becauseno one would be willing to put in the funds to take it to the next step, because they don't get acompetitive advantage over it. So all of those things happen depending on what the technologyis, and what's it going to take to make it mature.
ß We do have an entrepreneurial leave of absence program, where we try to make it possible forour scientists to move out with the technology, an effective way of transferring that technology,and reducing the risk of commercialization.
ß We provide training tools and education courses on technology transfer. Included in these areexplanations of how the federal labs can do technology transfer through use of variousmechanisms. And also training about market assessment, the role of state and localorganizations in economic development, and the role of venture capital.
ß We provide the commercialization assistance, a mentoring program to smaller labs…. A lot ofthe smaller labs do not have the resources necessary, and we wanted to be able to supply that forthem if they needed it, and requested it.
95
U.S. Government
ß We determine whether to seek intellectual property protection on basically five criteria. Andthese include, first of all, the scope of the invention and the market size. And again, inagriculture we are dealing with a lot of small, narrow-margin operations.
The degree of commercial interest is the second criterion. The degree of additional research anddevelopment that is necessary to commercialize this technology. Enforceability of the idea. Isthis a process that no one is going to be able to determine whether or not you have used thistechnology?
And the final criterion that we deem to be probably the most important, and that is whetherintellectual property protection is necessary to transfer the technology. If it isn't, we're not goingto waste our time with it. We are going to make the public release.
ß There are other circumstances where we want some exclusivity, but by field of use. Whenwe've got a technology … we need the flexibility sometimes to be able to give it broadly, andother times to restrict it by field of use, because there are still some developmental costsassociated with that. But in many of the cases, if there is not a big cost to get it started, and not abig investment, that's oftentimes in agricultural endeavors, we want to get it as broadly availableas possible, so that the taxpayers, who paid the bill for this, reap the greatest benefit.
ß We prohibit, or I should say we discourage, the use of patent licensing procedures of patentingproducts that inhibit and deter the research enterprise. So as long as a recipient of funding isusing a patented technology and a material for the purposes of not only commercialization, butalso getting the product to other researchers, when that is appropriate, we do not discourage thatkind of activity.
Unknown Affiliation
ß From our standpoint we are going to go where the technology is. If we can't get it here inAmerica, we're going across the pond.
Metrics
Colleges/Universities
ß Do we have insight into how much institutional and university funding goes into that researcheffort along with the federal funds through cost sharing or direct costs? Do we have anymeasures of what contribution the institutions themselves might be making to the technologytransfer or the discovery of new technology?
96
ß The most commonly used metrics apply to the end product. And that has been demonstratedsuccessfully by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) what those endproducts are. They are disclosures, new patents issues, new licenses and options grants, andstart-up companies formed.
But I propose that the metrics for end products do not tell the whole story. You have to look atthe precondition what would generate successful technology transfer. And among those areexisting and increasing monetary support for research and development, a solid governmentpatent policy, viable university technology transfer policies, an educated faculty that is awareand interested in technology transfer, availability of discretionary funds for those faculty toprotect their intellectual property, and finally, the continued involvement of the inventor in thetechnology transfer process.
Now, it would also be a mistake to use metrics that only consider applied research, becausealthough basic research does not directly lead to inventions, it has a tremendous multiplier effect,which provides the necessarily stimulus for further development and technology transfer.
ß To be complete, metrics must also look at the goals the government has established for theoutcomes of the programs it funds.
ß When you look at the AUTM data, don't look at averages, look at the distribution acrossuniversities. You get a very, very different picture of what is going on. Unfortunately, averagesare what people quote, not distribution.
Federal Laboratories
ß The important metric … is how these partnerships benefit our primary mission. It is not justabout generating dollars per se. It's about how do these things that not only help industry, [butalso] help the local economy.
Large Corporations
ß Once we reach an agreement working with universities or national labs, usually those come outvery good. So if you just measure the example of technology transfer, those are alreadynegotiated, then I think the result, if you measure the result, it will be very successful. But Ithink we have to think about those that are non-starters. And as a technology transfer manager,we have to increase the number of opportunities, and decrease the number of non-starters.
ß We must establish an end-user metric, the ultimate test, and indeed the challenge of all publicpolicy, as well as the patient or consumer or student or citizen who benefits from the system.
97
U.S. Government
ß The CRADA bubble of the 1990s demonstrated the mistake of treating all technology transferefforts as one in the same, as too many folks pursued CRADAs not because they were the righttechnology transfer tool, but because headquarters or OMB was counting the quantity, the totalnumber of CRADAs.
We've got to measure what we value, and not value what we measure. This is particularly true,because much significant technology transfer occurs among people, when graduate students taketheir knowledge to industry, or guest researchers work with federal lab scientists. Suchexchanges of knowledge and know-how are almost certainly technology transfer, but they arekind of tough to quantify.
ß I think metrics are critical, but also one needs to use them carefully. And the intermediarymetrics, as people have said, are useful, but are only part of the picture. One has to look at thenumber of patents, the number of licenses, and the perspective of the end result. And so we aretrying more and more to look at, not hide, the metrics into better intermediary, but look at themmore in the context of the end result. That is, what's improving? In our case, public health.What is getting on the market? What have we licensed? What can develop in clinical trials, andcome to the marketplace that will ultimately benefit public health? In the case ofpharmaceuticals and biotechnology products that require regulatory approval, of course that's along process. And so the metrics of how many products are on the market today is only ameasure of things that occurred many years ago. So as you know, it's a long process. It's notlike making a widget or an engineering area in which there isn't less or no regulatory approvalrequired. So I would favor metrics that do look particularly at the end product, and not focusentirely on a midstream number, like number of patents, number of licenses per se.
ß Why the focus on the 30 percent of the federal budget that seems ripe for technology transfer.What is the significance of that? The other 70 percent is not ripe?
General Topics
Colleges/Universities
ß The vast majority of biology-related, molecular biology-related [research], from which the truebiotechnology, as opposed to medical device technology transfer comes, is about as basic as youcan get.
ß If you look at what comes out of universities, about three-quarters of it is very, very basicresearch. One of the issues as an academic that I'm concerned about, your linear model may wellfit federal labs, but the feedback loops, and the effects from the technology transfer and theindustries back to the researchers is a very critical issue.
98
ß [The] definition of technology transfer … that was a process of transferring a technology for apurpose that it was not originally intended …applies perfectly to university inventions. Mostinventions coming out of universities, came out of faculty research, where the faculty memberwas not at all interested in the end product. It's really curiosity or funding-driven research.
Large Corporations
ß Our ultimate goal for federally funded research is to help U.S. industry compete globally, notjust a large company, or not just a small company.
U.S. Nonprofits
ß Many of the biotechnology start-ups are actually done by the inventor, and they spin out theirown companies. They already have the knowledge. The often have the intellectual propertyrights.
U.S Government
ß I think from my experience, which includes a lot of technology agencies, the technologytransfer has not really focused on applied versus basic research. If you look at the blockbusters,you will probably see most of them come from basic research. I think the point that has beenmade already is that those distinctions are really hard to make.
Unknown Affiliation
ß Biotechnology might be different, and someone else can comment on that, but certainly in theengineering/physics kinds of things, most of what happens in industry is development. It is notapplied research, never mind basic research.
And so just looking at the raw dollars and saying, well, industry is going to save our bacon is thewrong answer. It's not.
99
Bibliography
Several attendees of the December 12, 2002, Technology Transfer Forum suggested that it wouldbe useful to have a comprehensive bibliography of technology transfer references, which wehave provided here. This list is not necessarily complete, nor have all the papers cited beenstudied by the authors, but we hope that the requesters and others involved with technologytransfer will find it useful.
A
Aaron, E. 1988. "Tapping Into University Technology—Profiting From University Research."High Technology Business, 8(December): 26-8.
Abelson, P. 1991. "Federal Impediments to Scientific Research." Science, 251(Feb.8): 605.
Ableson, P. 1986. "Evolving state-university-industry relations." Science, (24 January): 317.
Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1987, “Innovation, Market Structure and Firm Size,”Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 567-75.
Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1988, “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: AnEmpirical Analysis,” American Economic Review, 78, 678-90.
Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1989, “Patents as a Measure of Innovative Activity,Kyklos, 42:2, 171-180.
Acs, Zoltan J., David B. Audretsch and Maryann P. Feldman, 1992 “Real Effects of AcademicResearch: Comment”, American Economic Review, 82:1, 363-367.
Acs, Zoltan J., David B. Audretsch and Maryann P. Feldman, 1994, “R&D Spillovers andRecipient Firm Size,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76:2, 336-340.
Addo, T. B. A. and R. J. Schlesinger. 1991. "Database Considerations in a Technology-TransferNetwork." Journal of Technology Transfer, 16 (I): 28.
Agrawal, A., and R. Henderson. (2002). “Putting Patents in Context: Exploring KnowledgeTransfer from MIT,” Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 44-60.
Ahire, S. L., and Ravicahndran, T. (2001, November). An innovation diffusion model of TQMimplementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(4), 445-464.
Akashah, Saed E. 1987. "Innovation versus the transfer of technology: a case study of R&D in apetroleum-producing country." International Journal of Technology Management, 2(2): 249-62.
Albernathy, W.J. and B.S. Chakravarthy, 1979. "Government Intervention and Innovation inIndustry: A Policy Framework," Sloan Management Review. (Spring): 3-18.
Aldhous, P. 1994. "An Industry-Friendly Science Policy." Science, 265(July 29): 596-8.
Alien, T. J. 1966. "The Performance of Information Channels in the Transfer of Technology."Review, 8(1): 87-98.
100
Alien, T. J., J. Utterback, M. A. Sirbu, and J. H. Holloman. 1978. "Government Influence on theProcess of Innovation in Europe and Japan." Research Policy, 7: 124-129.
Alien, T., D. Hyman, and D. Pinckney 1983. "Transferring technology to the smallmanufacturing firms: A study of technology transfer in three countries." Research Policy, 12.
Ambrosio, E. M. 1995. "Technological Management And Transfer of Technology." InternationalJournal of Technology Management, 10(7-8): 665-675.
Anderson, C. 1993. "Rocky Road for Federal Research Inc." Science, 262(October 22): 496-8.
Aneja, A.P. and Aneja, V.P., "The Strategy of Process Translation," Vol. 20, No.6, November,1977, pp. 37-40
Anselin L., A. Varga and Z. Acs 1997. "Local geographic spillovers between university researchand high technology innovations." Journal of Urban Economics 42(3): 422-448.
Arbaugh, J. B. & D. L. Sexton. 1995. "Assessing Present Practices for Defense Conversion inSmall to Medium-Sized Firms." Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(1): 84.
Ardis, M. A. , & Marcolin, B. L. (2001). "Diffusing software product and process innovations(Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.6 fourth working conference on diffusing software productand process innovations)" , Banff, Canada, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston.
Argote, L., S. Beckman., D. Epple 1990. "The persistence and transfer of learning in industrialsettings" Management Science, 36(2).
Armbrecht R.F.M, Chapas R.B., Chappelow C.C., Farris G.F., Friga P.N., Hartz C.A., McllvaineM.E., Postale S.R., and Whitwell G.E., “Knowledge Management in R&D,” Vol. 44, No. 4, July-August 2001, pp. 28
Armstrong, J. A. 1993. "University-Research--New Goals, New Practices." Issues in Science andTechnology, 9(2): 50-53.
Association of American Universities 1986. Trends in Technology Transfer at Universities:Report of the Clearinghouse on University-Industry Relations. (Washington, DC).
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Licensing Survey: FY2000(Northbrook Illinois, 2001).
Atkinson, R. 1991. "Innovation Policy Making in a Federalist System: Lessons from the Statesfor US Federal Innovation Policy Making." Research Policy, 20(6): 559.
Attewell, P. (1992, February). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case ofbusiness computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.
Audretsch, D.B. and M. Vivarelli 1996. "Firms size and R&D spillovers: Evidence from Italy."Small Business Economics, 8(3): 249-258.
Audretsch, D.B. and M.P. Feldman, 1996, “R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovationand Production,” American Economic Review, 86:3, 630-640.
Audretsch, David, Barry Bozeman, Kathryn Combs, Maryann Feldman, Albert Link, DonaldSiegel, Paula Stephan, Gregory Tassey and Charles Wessner, 2002, “The Economics of Scienceand Technology,” Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 155-203.
Autio E. and A. P. Hameri 1995. "The structure and dynamics of technological systems: Aconceptual model." Technology in Society, 17(4): 365-384.
101
Autio, E. 1997. New technology-based firms in innovation networks: Sympletis and generativeimpacts." Research Policy, 26(3): 263-281.
Autio, E. and T. Laamanen 1995. "Measurement and Evaluation of Technology-Transfer--Review of Technology-Transfer Mechanisms and Indicators." International Journal ofTechnology Management, 10(7-8): 643-664.
Ayres, R. U. 1986. "Technological Protection and Piracy: Some Implications for Policy."Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 30(1): 5-19.
Ayres, R.U., 1985. "A Schumpeterian Model of Technological Substitution," TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 27(4): 375-385.
Azzone G. and P. Maccarrone 1997. "The emerging role of lean infrastructures in technologytransfer: the case of the Innovation Plaza project." Technovation, 17(7): 391-402.
B
Backer, T. E 1995. "Assessing and Enhancing Readiness for Change - Implications forTechnology Transfer." NIDA Research Monograph, 155: 21.
Backer, T. E. & S. L. David 1995. "Synthesis of Behavioral Science Learnings AboutTechnology Transfer." NIDA Research Monograph, 155: 262.
Bagur, J., and Guissinger, A. 1987. "Technology transfer legislation: An overview." Journal ofTechnology Transfer. 12:51-63.
Baker, J. “Creating Knowledge Creating Wealth: Realising the Economic Potential of PublicSector Research Establishments.” A report by John Baker to the Minister for Science and theFinancial Secretary to the Treasury, August 1999. (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Documents/Enterprise_and_Productivity/Research_and_Enterprise/ent_sme_baker.cfm)
Balachandra, R. 1996. "International technology transfer in small business: A new paradigm."International Journal of Technology Management, 12(5-6): 625-638.
Barnes, A. D., ed. 1987. Technology Transfer: A European Perspective. (Sheffield: University ofSheffield).
Baron, Seymour, "Overcoming Barriers to Technology Transfer," Vol. 33, No. 1,January-February, 1990, pp. 38-43
Bartlem, C. S., and Locke, E. A. ( 1981, July). The Coch and French study: a critique andreinterpretation. Human Relations, 34(7), 555-566.
Baruch, J. J. 1990. "Transferring Technology into and within the Third World." Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 15(3): 29.
Basalla, G. 1967. "The Spread of Western Science." Science, 156(May): 611-622.
Basalla, G. 1993. "The Spread of Western Science Revisited." In Mundializacion de la Ciencia yCultura Nacional. A. Elena and M. L. Ortega (eds.) (Madrid: Ediciones Doce Calles).
Bayer, J., & Melone, N. (1988, August). "Adoption of software engineering innovations inorganizations." (CMU/SEI-88-TR-27). Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
102
Bayer, J., and Melone, N. (1989, February). A critique of diffusion theory as a managerialframework for understanding adoption of software engineering innovations. Journal of Systems& Software, 9(2), 161-166.
Beaumont, C., J. Dingle and A. Reithinger. 1981. "Technology Transfer and Applications." R &D Management, 11: 149-156.
Beecham, M. A. and M. Cordey-Hayes 1998. "Partnering and knowledge transfer in the UKmotor industry." Technovation, 18(3): 191-205.
Benowitz, S. “Hard Choices,” The Scientist, 9[18], September 18, 1995.
Berkowitz, B. D. 1992/1993. "Can Defense Research Revive US Industry?" Issues in Scienceand Technology, 9(Winter): 73-81.
Berkowitz, B. D. 1994. "Why defense reinvestment won't work--President Clinton wants tostimulate the economy by adapting defense firms to civilian manufacturing, a task for which theyare not at all suited." Technology Review, 97(July): 52-60.
Berman, E. 1990. "R&D Consortia - Impact on Competitiveness?" Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 15(3): 5.
Berman, E. M. 1990. "The economic impact of industry-funded university R&D." ResearchPolicy, 19: 349-355.
Berman, E. M. 1994. "Technology Transfer And The Federal Laboratories--Midterm AssessmentOf Cooperative Research" (Part Of A Symposium On Technology Transfer And Public Policy).Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 338-348.
Berman, E. M. 1994. "Technology-Transfer And The Federal Laboratories - A MidtermAssessment Of Cooperative Research." Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 338-348.
Berniker, E. 1991. “Models of technology transfer: a dialectical case study.” Proceedings of theIEEE Conference: The New International Language, July, pp 499-502.
Bertha, S. L. 1990. "Technology Contracts - An Academic Perspective." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 15(1 & 2): 41.
Bessant, J. and H. Rush 1995 "Building Bridges For Innovation: The Role Of Consultants InTechnology Transfer." Research Policy, 24(1): 97-115.
Betz, F. 1994. "Basic Research And Technology-Transfer." International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 9(5-7): 784-796.
Bidault, F. and W. A. Fischer 1994. "Technology Transactions--Networks Over Markets." R&DManagement, 24(4): 373-386.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). "The social construction oftechnological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology." MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.
Billups, J. 0. and M. C. Julia 1996. "Technology transfer and integrated social development:International issues and possibilities for social work." Journal Of Sociology And Social Welfare,23(1): 175-188.
Bishop, A. P. & M. B. Peterson. 1990. "Developing Information Systems for TechnologyTransfer: An Example from Tribology." Science & Technology Libraries, 11(2): 5.
103
Blanchard, P.A. and C. McDonald 1986. "Reviving the spirit of enterprise role of the federallabs." Physics Today, 39: 42-50.
Blasberg, B.L. 1987. "Patents and the Measurement of Technological Change: A survey of theliterature." Research Policy, 16(2-4): 131.
Bloch, E. 1994. "Updated Science Policy-Making--Finishing The Job. Issues in Science andTechnology, 11(1): 22-26.
Bloch, E. and D. Cheney 1993. "Technology Policy Comes Of Age." Issues in Science andTechnology, 9(4); 55-60.
Blumenthal, D., S. Epstein and J. Maxwell, J. 1986. "Commercializing university research -lessons from the experience of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation." New EnglandJournal of Medicine, 3214(25): 1621-1626.
Bodelle, Jacques and Jablon, Claude, "Science and Technology Scouting at Elf Aquitaine,"Research-Technology Management, Vol. 36, No. 5, September-October, 1993, pp. 24-28
Bonomo, J., J. Lowell, J. Finder, K. Webb, J. Saul, P. Cannon, J. Sloan and D. M. Adamson1998. Monitoring and Controlling the International Transfer of Technology. (Santa Monica, CA:RAND, Critical Technologies Institute).
Bostrom, R. P., and Heinen, J. S. (1977, September). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective, part I: the causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17-32.
Boulton, W., M. Dowling and J. Lohmeyer 1992. "Technology Development Strategies in Japan,Europe and the United States." Technovation 12(2): 99.
Bozeman, B. 1994. "Evaluating Government Technology Transfer: Early Impacts of‘Cooperative Technology' Paradigm." Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 322-337.
Bozeman, B. and A. Link. 1985. "Public Support for Private R&D: The Case of the JointVenture Research Tax Credit." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 4 (3): 370-382.
Bozeman, B. and D. Rahm. 1989. "Science and Technology Consequences for PublicManagement," in Handbook of Public Administration, ed. J. Perry (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Bozeman, B. and E. Cole. 1982. "Scientific Information Acquisition in Public Agencies: TheRole of Channel Preference and 'Gatekeeping'." Administration and Society, September.
Bozeman, B. and F. Rossini. 1977. "National Strategies for Technological Innovations."Administration and Society, 9(1): 81-111.
Bozeman, B. and J. L. Bozeman 1990." Technology-Intensive Business Views of Government'sRole: Implications for Economic Development." Policy Studies Review.
Bozeman, B. and K. Coker 1992. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer from USGovernment R&D Laboratories: The Impact of Market Orientation." Technovation 12(4): 239.
Bozeman, B. and M. Crow 1988. "US R&D Laboratories and their Environments: Public andMarket Influence." Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Science Resources Section.(Syracuse, NY: Technology and Information Policy Program).
Bozeman, B. and M. Crow 1991. "Red Tape and Technology Transfer in Government Labs inthe US." Journal of Technology Transfer 16(2): 29.
104
Bozeman, B. and M. Crow 1991. "Technology Transfer from US Government and UniversityR&D Laboratories." Technovation 11(4): 231.
Bozeman, B. and M. Fellows 1988. "Technology Transfer at the US National Laboratories, AFramework for Evaluation." Evaluation and Program Planning, 11(1): 65-75.
Bozeman, B. and R. McGowan. 1982. "Information Acquisition and Political Environments inTechnologically - Intensive Government Agencies," in The Transfer and Utilization of TechnicalKnowledge. ed. D. Sahal (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).
Bozeman, B. and S. Pandey. 1994. "Cooperative R&D in Government Laboratories: Comparingthe US and Japan" Technovation, 14(3): 145-215.
Bozeman, B., A. Link and A. Zardkoohi. 1987. "An Economic Analysis of R&D JointVentures." Managerial and Decision Economics.
Bozeman, B., D. Rahm, and M. Crow 1987. "Technology Transfer to Government and Industry:Who? Why? And to What Effect?" Paper presented at the Harvard Business School Colloquiumon Operations and Production.
Bradbury, Frank (ed.) 1978. Transfer processes in technical change. (Alphen annden Rijn,Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.)
Branscomb, L. M. 1992. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva, 30(3): 317-336.
Branscomb, L., R. Florida, D. Hart, J. Keller and D. Boville 1997. "Investing in Innovation,Toward a Consensus Strategy for Federal Technology Policy,http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/iip/techproj/invest.html
Brenner M.S. and Tao J.C., "You Can Measure External Research Programs," Vol, 44. No. 3,May-June 2001, pp 14-15
Bretschneider, S. and B. Bozeman. 1986. "Adaptive Diffusion Models for the Growth ofRobotics in New York State Industry." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 30(2):111-123.
Brockhoff, K. and T. Teichert 1995. "Cooperative Research-And-Development And PartnersMeasures Of Success." International Journal of Technology Management, 10(1): 111-123.
Brooks, H. 1994. "The Relationship Between Science and Technology." Research Policy, 23 (5):477-487.
Brown M. A. 1997. "Performance metrics for a technology commercialization program."International Journal of Technology Management, 13(3): 229-244.
Brown M. A. and C. R. Wilson 1992. "Promoting The Commercialization Of EnergyInnovations - An Evaluation Of The Energy-Related Inventions Program." Policy StudiesJournal, 20(1): 87-101.
Brown, G. E. 1994. "New Ways Of Looking At US Science And Technology." Physics Today,47(September): 31-5.
Brown, M. A. 1990. "The cost of commercializing energy inventions." Research Policy, 19: 147-155.
Brown, M. A. and C. H. Major. 1990. "Technology Transfer Strategies of DOE'S ConservationPrograms." Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(1-2): 33.
105
Brown, M. A., T. R. Curlee and S. R. Elliott. 1995. "Evaluating Technology InnovationPrograms: The Use of Comparison Groups to Identify Impacts." Research Policy, 24(5): 669-685.
Brown, M., L. Berry and R. Goel. 1991. "Guidelines for Successfully Transferring Government-Sponsored Innovations." Research Policy, 20(2): 109.
Buchan, R. L. 1990. "Technology Transfer at NASA --A Librarian's View." Science &Technology Libraries, 11(2): 49.
Buckley, P. J. 1997. "International technology transfer by small and medium-sized enterprises."Small Business Economics, 9(1): 67-78.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). "Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis."Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.
Busch, V.J. "Combinatorial Analysis-How Much Is It Worth?”, Vol. 44, No. 2,March-April,2001, pp. 38-39
Butler, B., & Gibbons, D. (1998). Power distribution as a catalyst and consequence ofdecentralized diffusion. In "Information systems innovation and diffusion: issues and directions"(T. J. Larsen, and E. McGuire, Eds.), pp. 3-28. Idea, Hershey, PA.
Buxton, J. N., and Malcolm, R. (1991, January). Software technology transfer. SoftwareEngineering Journal, 6(1), 17-23.
Byrd, T. A. , and Marshall, T. E. (1997). Relating information technology investment toorganizational performance: A causal model analysis. Omega, International Journal ofManagement Science, 25(1), 43-56.
C
Cale, E. G. , and Curely, K. F. (1987). Measuring implementation outcome: Beyond success andfailure. Information & Management, 13(5), 245-253.
California Department of Commerce, 1987. Technology transfer: the California experience.(Sacramento, CA: California Department of Commerce; Office of Economic Research.)
Cameron, H.M., and J. S. Metcalfe 1987. "On the Economics of Technological Substitution."Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 32 (2): 147.
Caputo, K. ( 1998). "CMM implementation guide: Choreographing software processimprovement." Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Carr, R. K. "Doing Federal Technology Transfer (Part I). 1992." Journal of Technology Transfer,17 (2 & 3): 8.
Carr, R. K. 1992. "Menu of Best Practices (Part 2)." Journal of Technology Transfer, 17 (2 & 3):24.
Carr, R.K., “Menu of Best Practices in Technology Transfer,” Journal of Technology Transfer,17 No. 2/3, pp. 24-33 (1992). (http://www.millkern.com/rkcarr/flpart2.html)
Casey, W.J., “Technology Exchange with the USSR," Vol. 17, No. 4, July, 1974,pp. 7-9
Caswell, M. and R. Shoemaker 1997. "Agricultural policies to encourage the diffusion ofenvironmentally preferred technologies." American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 79(5):1730-1730.
106
Chaddha, R. L., and Chitgopekar, S. S. (1971, Autumn). A "generalization" of the logistic curvesand long-range forecasts (1966-1991) of residence telephones. Bell Journal of Economics, 2 (2),pp. 542-560.
Chakrabarti, A. K. , I. Dror and N. Eakabuse 1993. "Interorganizational Transfer Of Knowledge--An Analysis Of Patent Citations Of A Defense Firm." IEEE Transactions On EngineeringManagement, 40(1): 91-94.
Chakrabarti, A.K. 1973. "Some concepts of technology transfer: Adoption of innovations inorganizational context." R&D Management. 3 (3).
Chakrabarti, A.K. and Rubenstein, A.H. 1975. "Interorganizational transfer of technology:Adoption of NASA innovations." IEEE on Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-23,(I): 20-34.
Chalk, R. and P. Woolf. 1988-89. "Regulating a 'Knowledge Business'." Issues in Science &Technology, 5(2): 33-37.
Chang P. L., C. Shih and C. W. Hsu 1994. "The Formation Process Of Taiwan IC Industry -Method Of Technology-Transfer." Technovation, 14(3): 161-171.
Chapman, R. 1991. "Selling the Technology-Transfer Function." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 16 (3): 8.
Chapman, R.L. 1986. "The uncounted benefits: Federal efforts in domestic technology transfer."Technology Transfer Society International Symposium Proceedings 1986.
Charles, D., J. Howells and S. R. Postle 1993. "Technology Transfer In Europe--Private AndPublic Networks." R&D Management, 23(3): 269-270.
Chau, P. Y. K., and Tam, K. Y. (1997, March). Factors affecting the adoption of open systems:An exploratory study. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 1-20.
Checkland, P. (1993/1999). "Systems thinking, systems practice." (30-year retrospective) JohnWiley & Sons, West Sussex, England.
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990/1999). "Soft systems methodology in action." (30-yearretrospective) John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England.
Chiang, J. 1991. "From Mission-Oriented to Diffusion-Oriented Paradigm: The New Trend ofUS Industrial Technology Policy." Technovation, 11(6): 339.
Chiang, J. T. 1995. "Technology Policy Paradigms And Intellectual Property Strategies: ThreeNational Models." Technological Forecasting And Social Change, 49(1): 35-49.
Chiasson, M. W., and Lovato, C. Y. (2001, Summer). Factors influencing the formation of auser's perceptions and use of a DSS software innovation. Data Base for Advances in InformationSystems, 32(3), 16-35.
Chiesa, V. and R. Manzini 1996. "Managing knowledge transfer within multinational firms."International Journal of Technology Management, 12(4): 462-476.
Chifos C. and R. K. Jain 1997. "A comprehensive methodology for evaluating the commercialpotential of technologies: The strategic technology evaluation method." International Journal OfIndustrial Engineering-Applications And Practice,(4): 220-235.
Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firmsto Fail. Harper Books, New York, 1997.
107
Christensen, C. M. and R. S. Rosenbloom. 1995. "Explaining the Attacker’s Advantage:Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics and the Value Network." Research Policy,24(2): 207-233.
Clark, W. W. 1995. "Sharing American and European Economic Experiences in TechnologyConversion." Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(1): 9.
Clarke, R. 1985. Science and Technology in World Development. (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).
Climent, J. B., C. Palmer, S. Ruiz. 1995. "Omissions Relevant to the Contextual Domains ofTechnology Transfer Models." Journal of Technology Transfer, 20 (I): 93.
Cobb, S. L. & T. S. Barker. 1992. "A Model of Cross-Cultural Training in the Transfer ofTechnology." Journal of Technology Transfer, 17 (4): 8.
Coch, L., and French, J. R. P. (1948). "Overcoming resistance to change." Human Relations,1(4), 512-532.
Cohen, Hirsh, Keller, Seymour and Streeter, Donald, "The Transfer of Technology fromResearch to Development," Vol. 22, No. 3, May, 1979, pp. 11-17
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. (1972, March). A garbage can model of organizationalchoice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal, 1989, "Innovation and Learning: the Two Faces of R&D,"The Economic Journal, 99:397, 569-596.
Cohn, S.F., "Adopting Innovations in a Technology Push Industry," Vol. 24, No.5, September,1981, pp. 26-31
Colton, R. 1987. "University/Industry Cooperative Research Centers Are Proving Themselves."Research Management, 30(2): 34-38.
Colton, R. M. 1985. "Status Report on the NSF University/Industry Cooperative ResearchCenters." Research Management, 28(6): 25-32.
Colyvas, Jeannette, Michael Crow, Annetine Gelijns, Roberto Mazzoleni, Richard Nelson,Nathan Rosenberg, and Bhaven Sampat. 2001. "How Do University Inventions Get IntoPractice?" Management Science 48: 61-72.
Comer, J.M., O'Keefe, R.D. and Chilenska, A.A. 1980. "Technology transfer from governmentlaboratories to industrial markets." Industrial Marketing Management, 9: 63-67.
Conceicao P., M. V. Heitor and P. Oliveira 1998. "University-based technology licensing in theknowledge based economy." Technovation, 18(10): 615-625.
Conflicts Of Interest In University Technology Transfer." 1991. Chemtech, 21(February): 72-3.
Conner, D. ( 1993). "Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed andprosper where others fail." Villard Books, New York, NY.
Conn-Farkas, I. 1988. "Human aspects of information management for technology transfer."Information Management Review. 4: 47-56.
Contractor, F. J. and Sagafi-Nejad, T. 1981. "International technology transfer: Major issues andpolicy responses." Journal of International Business Studies, (Fall): 113-135.
108
Cooper, R. B., and Zmud, R. W. (1990, February). Information technology implementationresearch: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123-139.
Cordell, A J and J Gilmour. 1976. The Role and Function of Government Laboratories and theTransfer of Technology to the Manufacturing Sector. Science Council of Canada. (Oshawa:Marade Press).
Correa, C. M. 1994. "Trends in technology transfer – implications for developing countries."Science & Public Policy, 21 (6): 369.
Correa, C. M. 1995. "Innovation And Technology-Transfer In Latin America - A Review OfRecent Trends And Policies." International Journal of Technology Management 10(7-8): 815-846.
Correa, C. M. 1998. "Argentina's national innovation system." International Journal ofTechnology Management, 15(6-7): 721-760.
Coursey, D. and B. Bozeman 1992. "Technology-Transfer In United States Government AndUniversity Laboratories--Advantages And Disadvantages For Participating Laboratories." IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 39(4): 347-351.
Courtial, J. P. and A. Sigogneau 1995. "How To Use Scientific And Technological InformationTo Reveal Strategic Technologies." International Journal of Technology Management, 10(1): 31-44.
Cowan, R. and D. Forays. 1995. "Quandaries in the Economics of Dual Technological andSpillovers from Military to Civilian Research and Development." Research Policy, 24(6): 851-869.
Cowger, G. L. 1992. "Teaming for National Competitiveness." Journal of Technology Transfer,17 (2 & 3): 34.
Crow, M. 1985. "The Effect of Publicness on Organizational Performance: A Comparative Studyof R&D Laboratories." (Ph.D. Dissertation, Syracuse University).
Crow, M. 1989. "Technology and Knowledge Transfer in Energy R&D Laboratories: AnAnalysis of Effectiveness." Evaluation and Program Planning.
Crow, M. 1989. "Technology Development Strategies: Assessing the Effect of GovernmentInfluence on Industrial Research and Development." Research Management.
Crow, M. and B. Bozeman 1990. "Federal Laboratories: Information Products and Policies." inPerspectives on US Government Scientific and Technological Information Policies. eds. C.McClure and P. Hernon (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
Crow, M. and B. Bozeman 1998. Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the U.S. nationalinnovation system. (New York: Columbia University Press).
Crow, M. and B. Bozeman. 1987. "A New Typology for R&D Laboratories: Implications forPolicy Analysis." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6 (3): 328-341.
Crow, M. and B. Bozeman. 1987. "R&D Laboratories Environmental Contexts: Are theGovernment Lab-Industrial Lab Stereotypes Still Valid?" Research Policy, 13(December):329-355.
Crow, M. and M Emmert. 1987. "Organized Science and Public-Private Cooperation." Journal ofManagement, 13(1): 55-67.
109
Crow, M. and M. Emmert. forthcoming. "Public, Private and Hybrid Organizations: AnEmpirical Examination of the Role of Publicness." Administration and Society.
Crow, M. and S. Nath. 1990. "Technology Strategy Development in Japanese Industry: AnAssessment of Market and Government Influences." Technovation, 10(5): 333.
Crow, M. and S. Nath. 1992. "Technology Strategy Development in Korean Industry: AnAssessment of Market and Government Influences." Technovation, 12(2): 119.
Crow, M., B. Bozeman, W. Meyer and R. Shangraw. 1988. Synthetic Fuel TechnologyDevelopment in the United States. (New York: Praeger).
Crow, M., W. Lambright, and R. Shangraw. 1984. "National Projects in Civilian Technology."Policy Studies Review, 2(3-4): 453-459.
Cusumano M. A. and D. Elenkov 1994. "Linking International Technology-Transfer WithStrategy And Management --A Literature Commentary." Research Policy, 23(2): 195-215.
Cutler, R. 1988. "Survey of high-technology-transfer mechanisms in Japan and the USA."Technology Transfer. 42-48.
Cutler, W.G., "Acquiring Technology From Outside," Vol. 34, No. 3, May-June, 1991, pp. 11-18
Cyert, R M. 1985. "Establishing University-Industry Joint Ventures. Research Management,28(1): 27-29.
D
Dahlstrand A. L. "Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms." ResearchPolicy, 26(3): 331-344.
Daipe, R., C. DeBresson, and H. Xiaoping. 1992. "The Public Sector as First User ofInnovations." Research Policy, 21(3): 251.
Dakin, K. 1994. "BodyShock - A Technology Transfer Opportunity." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 19 (2): 47.
Dalton, D. H. and M. G. Serapio, Jr. 1995. Globalizing Industrial Research and Development.(Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy, Asia-Pacific Technology Program).
Daniels, F. 1994. "University-Related Science Parks-Seedbeds or Enclaves of Innovation?"Technovation, 14(2):93-39.
Daniels, P. L. 1997. "National technology gaps and trade – An empirical study of the influenceof globalisation." Research Policy, 25(8): 1189-1207.
David Jr., E.E., "Technology Export and National Goals," Vol. 17, No. 1, January, 1974, pp.12-16
David, P. A. 1986. "Technology diffusion, public policy, and industrial competitiveness." in ThePositive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N.Rosenberg (eds.) (Washington, DC: National Academy Press): 373-391.
Davidson, W. 1983. "Structure and performance in international technology transfer." Journal ofManagement Studies, 20: 453-465.
Davidson, W. and D. G. McFetridge 1985. "Key characteristics in the choice of internationaltechnology transfer mode." Journal of International Business Studies, (Summer): 5-21.
110
Davies, H. 1977. "Technology transfer through commercial transactions and the theory of thefirm." Journal of Industrial Economics, 26: 161-175.
Davis, S. 1979. The Diffusion of Process Innovations. (Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press).
De Bruijn, E.J. and Jia, Xianfeng, "Transferring Technology to China by Means of JointVentures," Vol. 36, No. 1, January-February, 1993, pp. 17-22
De la Barre, D.M. 1985. "Federal technology transfer act of 1985: PL99-502 at a glance." TheJournal of Technology Transfer, 2 (1).
Dearaujo, J. L. 1995. "Are Technology Diffusion-Processes Inherently Historical."Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 48(3): 243-257.
DeBondt, R. 1997, "Spillovers and innovative activities." International Journal Of IndustrialOrganization, 15(1): 1-28.
DeCanio, S. J., Dibble, C., and Amir-Atefi, K. (2000, October). The importance oforganizational structure for the adoption of innovations. Management Science, 46(10), 1285-1299.
Dechenaux, Emmanuel, Brent Goldfarb, Scott Shane and Marie Thursby, 2002. “Appropriabilityand the timing of innovation: Evidence from MIT inventions,” unpublished paper, July. 3.
Delamothe, J. and P. R. Dufour 1995. "Techno-Globalism And The Challenges To Science AndTechnology Policy." Daedalus, 124(3): 219-235.
Dembo, V. 1979. "Technology transfer planning" in R&D Management. 9(3).
Denny, J. E. 1983. "Cooperative R&D: DOE'S Patent Policy Need Not be a Barrier." ResearchManagement, 34-39.
Dent, E. B., and Goldberg, S. G. (1999, March). Challenging "resistance to change". Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.
DesForges, C. D. 1986. "US and UK experience in technology transfer: a comparative analysis."International Journal of Technology Management, 1(3-4): 457-476.
Detragiache, E. 1998. "Technology diffusion and international income convergence." Journal ofDevelopment Economics, 56(2): 367-392.
Devine, M., James, T., & Adams, T. 1987. "Government supported industry-university researchcenters: issues for successful technology transfer." Journal of Technology Transfer. 12:27-37.
Diamond, M. A. (1986, September). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of Argyrisand Schon's contributions to organization theory and intervention. Journal of ManagementStudies, 23(5), 543-562.
Dietrich, J.J., & Sen, R.K. 1981. "Making industry-university-government collaboration work."Research Management. 23-25.
Dill, D. 1990. "University/Industry Research Collaborations: An Analysis of InterorganizationalRelationships." R&D Management 20(2): 123.
Dill, D. D. 1995. "University-Industry Entrepreneurship – The Organization And ManagementOf American-University Technology-Transfer Units." Higher Education, 29(4): 369-384.
111
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (April 1983). The Iron Cage revisited: Institutionalisomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,48(2), 147-160.
Doctors, S. I. 1969. The Role of Federal Agencies in Technology Transfer. (Cambridge: MITPress).
Doctors, S. I. 1971. The NASA Technology Transfer Program.(New York: Praeser).
Doelling, N. 1982. "Sea grant-The MIT sea grant marine industry collegium: A partnership ofindustry, government and academia." Journal of Technology Transfer. 6 (2): 9.
Doms, M. E & R. H. McGuckin. 1992. "Trade in high technology products." Science & PublicPolicy, 19 (6): 343.
Dorf, R. and K. F. Worthington 1987. "Models for commercialization of technology fromuniversities and research laboratories." Journal of Technology Transfer. 12:1-9.
Dorf, R. and K. Worthington. 1990. "Technology Transfer from Universities and ResearchLaboratories." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 37(3): 251-266.
Dorfman, N. S. 1983. "Route 128: The Development of a Regional High Technology Economy."Research Policy, 12(6).
Douds, C.F. 1971. "The state of the art in the study of technology transfer: A brief survey." R&DManagement. 1 (June).
Dunning, J.H. 1983. "Market power of the firm and international transfer of technology."International Journal of Industrial Organization, 333-351.
Dupuy D. 1997. "Technological change and environmental policy: The diffusion ofenvironmental technology." Growth and Change, 28(1): 49-66.
E
Eads, G. 1974. "US Governmental Support for Civilian Technology: Economic Theory VersusPolitical Practice." Research Policy, 3:2-16.
Easterbrook, S. (Ed.). (1992). "CSCW: Cooperation or conflict?" Springer-Verlag, London.
Easton, T. and Parbhoo, B., "Clubs Promote R&D Interaction at Dow Corning," Vol. 41, No. 1,January-February, 1998, pp. 12
Edmunds, A. , and Morris, A. (2000, February). The problem of information overload inbusiness organisations: A review of the literature. International Journal of InformationManagement, 20(1), 17-28.
Edwards, R. L. 1994. "The Industrial Revitalization Forums Program. Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 19 (2): 43.
Egide, K. 1984. "Technology Transfer: A look at the federal sector." Journal of TechnologyTransfer. 9: 71-89.
Eldred, E.W. and McGrath, M.E., Commercializing New Technology - II, Vol.40, No. 2, March-April, 1997, pp. 29-33
112
Elzen, B., B. Enserink and W. A. Smit 1996. "Sociotechnical Networks--How A TechnologyStudies Approach May Help To Solve Problems Related To Technical Change." Social StudiesOf Science, 26(1): 95-141.
Engel, C. 1990. "The Public Library - A Key to Technology Transfer." Science & TechnologyLibraries, 11(2): 89.
Enriquez, Juan and Rodrigo Martinez, 2002, “The Bioltechonomy (1.0): A Rough Map of Bio-Data Flow,” Harvard Business School Working Paper, 3:028.
Erbisch, F. H. & G. R. Butler. 1991. "Technology Transfer with an Intellectual-Property Focus."Journal of Technology Transfer, 16(1): 41.
Ethier, W. J. and J. R. Markusen 1996. "Multinational firms, technology diffusion and trade."Journal of International Economics 41(1-2): 1-28.
Ettlie, J. 1982. "The commercialization of federally sponsored technological innovations."Research Policy. 11: 173-192.
European Commission 1994. Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and WaysForward into the 21st Century, white paper. (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities).
Evans, T.P. 1976. "Triggering technology transfer." Management Review. 26-33.
Ezzat, H.A., Howell, L.J. and Kamal, M.M., "Transferring Technology at General Motors," Vol.32, No. 2, March-April, 1989, pp. 32-35
F
Fan, M., Stallaert, J., and Whinston, A. B. (2000, March). The adoption and designmethodologies of component-based enterprise systems. European Journal of InformationSystems, 9(1), 25-35.
Farkas-Conn, I.S. 1988. "Human aspects of information management for technology transfer."Information Management Review. 4 (2).
Faulkner, W. and J. Senker. 1994. "Making Sense of Diversity: Public-Private Sector ResearchLinkage in Three Technologies." Research Policy, 23(5): 673-697.
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, 99th Congress, 2nd Session.
Federal Technology Transfer Act, 1986. Senate Report 99-283.
Feller I. 1997. "Manufacturing technology centers as components of regional technologyinfrastructures." Regional Science And Urban Economics, 27(2): 181-197.
Feller, Gordon, "Tapping Soviet/East European Scientific and Technical Prowess," Vol. 33, No.5, September-October, 1990, pp. 16-22
Feller, I. 1987. "Technology transfer, public policy and the cooperative extension service-OMBimbroglio." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6: 307-327.
Feller, I. and D. Roessner. 1995. "What Does Industry Expect from University Partnerships;Congress Wants to See Bottom-Line Results from Industry/Government Programs, But That isNot What the Participating Companies Are Seeking." Issues in Science and Technology,12(1):80.
113
Feller, I. and Menzel, D.C., 1977. "Diffusion milieus as a focus of research on innovation in thepublic sector." Policy Sciences. 8: 49-68.
Feller, I., P. Madden, L. Kaltreider, D. Moore and L. Sims. 1987. "The New AgriculturalResearch and Technology Transfer Policy Agenda." Research Policy, 16(6): 315.
Feller, Irwin, 1988, “Evaluating State Advanced Technology Programs,” Evaluation Review, 12,232-252.
Felsenstein, D. 1994. "Science Parks" (Review Article). Economic Geography, 70(January): 72-6.
Fenton, N., Pfleeger, S. L., and Glass, R. L. (1994, July/August). Science and substance: Achallenge to software engineers. IEEE Software, 11(4), 86-95.
Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. (1993, Winter). Adoption of software engineering processinnovations: The case of object orientation. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 7-22.
Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. (1997, October). The assimilation of software processinnovations: An organizational learning perspective. Management Science, 43(10), 1345-1363.
Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. (1999, September). The illusory diffusion of innovation: Anexamination of assimilation gaps. Information Systems Research, 10(3), 255-275.
Finnegan, M.B., "R&D for Developing Countries: The Code of Conduct Issue," Vol. 22, No. 3,May 1979, pp. 39-41
Fischer, W. 1976. "Empirical approaches to understanding technology transfer." R&DManagement. 6.
Fitzgerald, B. (1996, January). Formalized systems development methodologies: A criticalperspective. Information Systems Journal, 6(1), 3-23.
Florida, R. 1995. "Technology Policy For A Global Economy." Issues in Science andTechnology, 11(3): 49-56.
Florida, R. and M. Kenney 1994. "The Globalization Of Japanese R&D--The EconomicGeography Of Japanese R&D Investment In The United States." Economic Geography,70(0ctober): 344-69.
Foden, H., P. McNamara, and R. Koepke 1988. "Boosting industry competitiveness: Local-leveltechnology transfer." Industrial Development. March/April.
Forje, J. W. 1995. "Development and technology policy in a changing society--challenges for theAfrican political structures." Science & Public Policy, 22 (2): 121.
Foruria, C. and W. E. Souder 1995. "The Evolution And Transfer Of National Technologies - AConceptual-Model With Comparative Case-Studies." Journal Of Scientific & IndustrialResearch, 54(4): 231-242.
Foster, R.N. 1971. "Organize for technology transfer." Harvard Business Review. Nov-Dec.
Fowler, P., & Levine, L. (1993, December). "Technology transition push: A case study of ratemonotonic analysis (Part 1)." (CMU/SEI-93-TR-29). Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh,PA.
114
Fowler, P., & Levine, L. (1995, April [Note that the date from the edition ID is 1993])."Technology transition pull: A case study of rate monotonic analysis (Part 2)." (CMU/SEI-93-TR-030). Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
Fowler, P., & Rifkin, S. (1990, September). "Software engineering process group guide."(CMU/SEI-90-TR-24). Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
Fredrikson, E.B. and Lawson, E.W., "The Role of Technology Transfer in Product Developmentand Marketing," Vol. 13, No. 4, July 1970, pp. 265-272
Freeman, C. and J. Hagedoorn 1992. "Globalization of Technology." Monitor-Fast Paper.(Brussels: Commission of the European Communities).
Freeman, C. and J. Hagedoorn 1994. "Catching Up Or Falling Behind - Patterns In InternationalInterfirm Technology Partnering." World Development, 22(5): 771-780.
Frosch, R.A., "R&D Choices and Technology Transfer," Vol. 27, No. 3, May-June, 1984, pp. 11-14
Fryda, L. 1989. "Illinois plan for technology transfer at Illinois State University." TechnologyTransfer. Summer/Fall.
Fusfeld, H. 1986. The Technical Enterprise. (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger).
G
Gallon, M. 1980. "The State of Technical Innovation - A Case Study of the Electrical Vehicle inFrance." Research Policy, 9: 358-376.
Gander, J. P. 1986. "The Economics of University-Industry Research Linkages." TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 29(1): 33-51.
Gander, J. P. 1987. "University/Industry Research Linkages and Knowledge Transfers: AGeneral Equilibrium Approach." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 31(2): 117-130.
Gartner, J. and Naiman, C. 1976. "Overcoming the barriers to technology transfer." ResearchManagement. March.
Gartner, J. and Naiman, C. 1978. "Making technology transfer happen." Research Management.May.
Gartner, Joseph and Naiman, C.S., "Making Technology Transfer Happen," Vol. 21, No. 3, May,1978, pp. 34-38
Gartner, Joseph and Naiman, C.S., "Overcoming the Barriers to Technology Transfer," Vol. 19,No. 2, March, 1976, pp. 22-28
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In "Pathdependence and creation" (R. Garud, and P. Karnøe, Eds.), pp. 1-38. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ.
Gates, W. 1988. "Federally Supported Commercial Technology Development: Solar ThermalTechnologies 1970-1982." Research Policy, 17(1): 27.
Gaw, J. L. (1999). "’A time to heal’: The diffusion of Listerism in Victorian Britain." AmericanPhilosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.
115
Gee, S. 1981. Technology Transfer; Innovation and Industrial Competitiveness. (New York:John Wiley & Sons).
Gee, Sherman, "The Role of Technology Transfer in Innovation," Vol. 17, No. 6, November,1974, pp. 31-36
Geffen, C A. 1995. "Radical innovation in environmental technologies - the influence of federalpolicy." Science & Public Policy, 22 (5): 313.
Geisler, E. 1993. "Technology Transfer: Toward Mapping the Field, a Review, and ResearchDirections. Journal of Technology Transfer, 18(3&4): 88-93.
Geisler, E. 1997. "Intersector technology cooperation: Hard myths, soft facts." Technovation,17(6): 309-320.
Geisler, E. and S. K. Kassicieh 1997. "Information technologies and technologycommercialization - The research agenda." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,44(4): 339-346.
Gelder, H. van. 1990. "ELAIN - Innovative Transfer of a Federal-Industry Network." Journal ofTechnology Transfer. 15 (1 & 2): 61.
Georgantzas, N. C. and C. N. Nadu. 1990. "Cognitive Processes in Technology Management andTransfer." Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 38(1): 81-96
Georghiou, L. G. and J. S. Metcalfe 1993. "Evaluation Of The Impact Of European CommunityResearch Programs Upon Industrial Competitiveness." R&D Management, 23(2): 161-169.
Geroski, P. A. (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy, 29, 603-625.
Gerwin, D., V. Kumar, and S. Pal. 1992. "Transfer of Advanced Manufacturing Technology -From Canadian Universities to Industry." Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(2 & 3): 57.
Gibbons, J. H. and C. E. Woteki 1994. "Science In The National Interest." Issues in Science andTechnology, 11(1): 19-21.
Gibbons, J.H. and H.L. Gwin 1989. "Lessons learned in twenty years of energy policy." EnergySystems and Policy, 13(1).
Giberson, W.E. 1969. "Management of technology transfer in an advanced project: The case ofthe surveyor." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-16 (3): 125-129.
Gilbert, M. and M. Cordeyhayes 1996. "Understanding The Process Of Knowledge Transfer ToAchieve Successful Technological Innovation." Technovation, 16(6): 301-312.
Gillespie,G. 1988. "Federal laboratories: Economic development and intellectual propertyconstraints." Technology Transfer. 20-26.
Gillette, W. 1977. "How Regulations Encourage and Discourage Innovations." ResearchManagement, (March).
Gladstone, N.J. 1986. "How not to promote technology transfer." Technology Review. 89.
Glaser, E. 1983. Putting knowledge to use: facilitating the diffusion of knowledge andimplementation of planned change. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Glass A. J. and K. Saggi 1998. "International technology transfer and the technology gap."Journal of Development Economics, 55(2): 369-398.
116
Glassman, A M. 1995. "Rethinking Organization Stability as a Determinant for InnovationAdoption and Diffusion." NIDA Research Monograph, 155: 132.
Glaziev, S. Yu., & Kaniosvki, Y. M. (1991). Diffusion of innovations under conditions ofuncertainty: A stochastic approach. In "Diffusion of technologies and social behavior" (N.Naki_enovi_, and A. Grübler, Eds.), pp. 231-246. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Godkin, L. 1988. "Problems and practicalities of technology transfer: A survey of the literature."International Journal of Technology Management, 3(5).
Golden, W. T. and J. K. Stine 1994. "Worldwide Science And Technology Advice To TheHighest Levels Of Governments." Isis, 85(1): 175-177.
Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. “Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards thecommercialization of university intellectual property.” Research Policy 32 (2003) 638-658.
Gomory, R.E., "Moving IBM's Technology from Research to Development," Research-Technology Management. Vol. 32, No. 6, November-December, 1989, pp. 27-32
Gover, J. "Corporate-Management Of Research-And-Development--Lessons For The United-States-Government." Research-technology Management, 38(2): 27-36.
Grady, R. B. , and Van Slack, T. (1994, July). Key lessons in achieving widespread inspectionuse. IEEE Software, 11, 46-57.
Granstrand, O. (1991). Temporal diffusion and population dynamics: A systems model. In"Diffusion of technologies and social behavior" (N. Naki_enovi_, and A. Grübler, Eds.), pp. 247-263. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Grant, E. B. and M. J. 1997. "Tacit knowledge, the life cycle and international manufacturingtransfer." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(2): 149-161.
Grant, E. B. and M. J. Gregory 1997. "Adapting manufacturing processes for internationaltransfer." International Journal Of Operations & Production Management, 17(9-10): 994.
Gray, D., et al 1986. "NSF's industry-university cooperative R&D centers program and theinnovation process: Evaluation-based lessons." in Technological Innovation D. Gray (ed.)(Amsterdam: Elsevier).
Green S. G., M. A. Welsh and G. E. Denier 1996. "Transferring technology into R&D: Acomparison of acquired and in-house product development projects." Journal of Engineering andTechnological Management, 13(2): 125-144.
Green, J., J. Brupbacher and D. Goldheim. 1991. "Strategic Partnering Aids TechnologyTransfer." Research Technology Management, 34(4): 26.
Greene, C. Scott. 1984. "Public policy, technology, and ethics: Marketing decisions for NASA'sspace shuttle." Journal of Marketing. 48: 56-67.
Griliches, Zvi, 1990, “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey,” Journal of EconomicLiterature, 28, 1661-1707.
Grliches, Zvi, 1979, “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development toProductivity Growth,” Bell Journal of Economics, 92-116.
Grosse, R. 1996. "International technology transfer in services." Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 27(4): 781-800.
117
Gruber, W.A. and Marquis, D.G. 1969. Factors in the Transfer of Technology. (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.)
Grubler, A. 1996. "Time For A Change—On The Patterns Of Diffusion Of Innovation."Daedalus, 125(3): 19-42.
Grupp, H. 1994. "Linking International Technology Transfer With Strategy and Management: ALiterature Commentary." Research Policy, 23(2): 175-217.
Gudmestad, T. and Gudmestad, O.T., "Protecting Intellectual Property During Divestitures andAcquisitions," Vol. 41, No. 5, September-October, 1998, pp. 36
H
Hagedoorn, J. 1989. The Dynamic Analysis of Innovation and Diffusion. (London: FrancesPinter).
Hagedoorn, J. 1990. "Organizational modes of inter-firm cooperation and technology transfer."Technovation. 10(1).
Hagedoorn, J. 1995. "Strategic Technology Partnering During the 1980s: Trends Networks andCorporate Patterns In Non-Core Technologies." Research Policy, 24(2): 207-233.
Hahm S. D., L. C. Pleon and R. Florida 1994. "The Politics Of International Technology-Transfer--Lessons From The Korean Experience." Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 311-321.
Hall, B. H., A. B. Jaffe, and M. Tratjenberg, 2001. “The NBER Patent Citation Data File:Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools.” National Bureau of Economic Research WorkingPaper No. 8498.
Hall, B.H., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 2000, “Market Value and Patent Citations: A FirstLook,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7741.
Ham R. M. and D.C. Mowery 1997. "Technology transfer and collaboration between industryand national laboratories." International Journal Of Industrial Engineering-Applications AndPractice, 4(4): 244-253.
Ham, R. M. and D. C. Mowery. 1995. "Improving Industry-Government Cooperative R&D: YouWon t Find A Treasure Chest of Market-Ready Technologies at the National Labs, But You CanFind Opportunities for Productive Collaboration." Issues in Science and Technology, 11(4): 67.
Hameri, A. P. 1996. "Technology-Transfer Between Basic Research And Industry."Technovation, 16(2): 51-57.
Hannay, N.B. and Steele, L.W., "Technology and Trade: A Study of U.S. Competitiveness inSeven Industries," Vol. 29, No. 1, January-February, 1986, pp. 14-22
Hardgrave, B. C. (1997, April). Adopting object-oriented technology: Evolution or revolution?Journal of Systems & Software, 37(1), 19-25.
Harmon, B., A. Ardishvili, R. Cardozo, et al. 1997. "Mapping the university technology transferprocess." Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6): 423-434.
Harris, M. (1996, March). Organizational politics, strategic change and the evaluation of CAD.Journal of Information Technology, 11(1), 51-8.
Hartmann, G.C. and Lakatos, A.I., "Assessing Technology Risk," Vol. 41, No. 2, March-April,1998, pp. 32
118
Harvey, M. 1984. "Application of Technology Life Cycles to Technology Transfers." TheJournal of Business Strategy, Fall: 51-58.
Hauschildt, J. 1992. "External Acquisition Of Knowledge For Innovations--A ResearchAgenda." R&D Management, 22(2): 105-110.
Hawkins, W.M. 1969. "Technology transfer programs at Lockheed." IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management. EM-16(3): 121-124.
Hayden, E.W., 'Transferring Technology to the Soviet Bloc: U.S. Corporate Experience," Vol.19, No. 5, September, 1976, pp. 17-23
Hayes, K. C. 1990. "The Role of Libraries in Technology Transfer for Agriculture." Science &Technology Libraries, 11(2): 77.
Headrick, D. R. 1998. "Technology and European overseas enterprise: Diffusion, adaption, andadoption." Technology and Culture, 39(2): 352-354.
Hecker, S. S. 1994. "Retargeting The Weapons Laboratories." Issues in Science and Technology,10(3): 44-51.
Hedley. R. A. 1998. "Technological diffusion or cultural imperialism? Measuring theinformation revolution." International Journal Of Comparative Sociology, 39(2): 198-212.
Heilmeier, G. H. 1993. "Reflections On Innovation, Invention, And Industrial Policy."Chemtech. 23(May): 7-9.
Heller, P. 1985. Technology Transfer and Human Values: Concepts, Applications, Cases.(Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
Hendry, J. and A. Norberg 1992. "Innovating For Failure--Government Policy And The EarlyBritish Computing Industry." Isis, 83(4): 688-690.
Herman, J. 1983. "Redefining the federal government's role in technology transfer." ResearchManagement. 21-24.
Herman, R. 1994. "Co-ordinating research and technological development in Europe--lessonsfrom the German system." Science & Public Policy, 21(6): 358.
Herrman, J.F., "Redefining the Federal Government's Role in Technology Transfer," Vol. 26,No. 1, January-February, 1983, pp. 21-24
Hewitt, W. E. 1996. "International municipal exchange as a catalyst for South-North technologyand information transfer: A case study from the Americas." Canadian Journal Of DevelopmentStudies, 17(2): 293-311.
Hicks, D. 1993. "University-Industry Research Links In Japan." Policy Sciences, 26(4): 361-395.
Hinman, G., L. Icerman and L. Seig. 1986. "Commercializing New Technology-Based Start-UpIndustries." Research Management, 29(1): 31-36.
Hiraoka, L. S. 1995. "Japan Coordinated Technology-Transfer And Direct Investments In Asia."International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7-8): 714-731.
Hirschheim, R., and Newman, M. (1988). Information systems and user resistance: Theory andpractice. Computer Journal, 31(5), 398-408.
119
Hisrich, R., & Smilor, R. 1988. "The university and business incubation: Technology transferthrough entrepreneurial development." Technology Transfer. 14-19.
Hoetker, G. 1997. "International technology transfer and the World Wide Web." Database, 20(3):20.
Hofmann, J. 1995. "Implicit Theories In Policy Discourse – An Inquiry Into The InterpretationsOf Reality In German Technology Policy." Policy Sciences, 28(2): 127-148.
Holley, J & R A Wilkens. 1994. "Flexible Manufacturing Networks - Strategies for EconomicRenewal." Journal of Technology Transfer, 19(2): 11.
Holstius, K. 1995. "Cultural Adjustment In International Technology-Transfer." InternationalJournal Technology Management, 10(7-8): 676-686.
Horn, P.M., "Information Technology Will Change Everything," Vol. 42, No. 1, January-February, 1999, pp. 42
Howell, Larry J., "Globalization Within the Auto Industry." Vol. 45, No. 4, July-August 2002pp. 43-49
Howells, J. 1990. "The Globalisation of Research and Development: A New Era of Change?"Science and Public Policy, 17: 273-285.
Howells, J. 1996. "Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer." Technology Analysis& Strategic Management, 8(2): 91-106.
Howells, J. 1997. "Rethinking the market-technology relationship for innovation." ResearchPolicy, 25(8): 1209-1219.
Huff, S. L., and Munro, M. C. (1985). Information technology assessment and adoption: A fieldstudy. MIS Quarterly, 327-339.
Huffamn, D. 1985. "Software support systems for use in technology transfer activities." Journalof Technology Transfer. 9(2): 29.
I
Iivari, J. (1995, August). Factors affecting perceptions of CASE effectiveness. European Journalof Information Systems, 4(3), 143-158.
Iivari, J. (1996, October). Why are CASE tools not used? Communications of the ACM, 39(10),94-103.
“Innovation’s Golden Goose,” The Economist Technical Quarterly, December 12, 2002.
Ives, B., and Olson, M. H. (1984, May). User involvement and MIS success: A review ofresearch. Management Science, 30(5), 586-603.
J
Jaakkola, H. (1996). Comparison and analysis of diffusion models. In "Diffusion and adoption ofinformation technology: Proceedings of the first IFIP WG 8.6 working conference on thediffusion and adoption of information technology" (Kautz, Karlheinz and Pries-Heje, Jan, Eds.),Oslo, Norway, pp. 65-82. Chapman & Hall, London.
120
Jaffe A. B., M. S. Fogarty and B. A. Banks 1998. "Evidence from patents and patent citations onthe impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation." Journal of IndustrialEconomics, 46(2): 183-205.
Jaffe, A. B. 1986. "Technological Opportunities and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms'Patents, Profits, and Market Value." The American Economic Review, 76(5).
Jaffee, Adam B, 1986, "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms'Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, 76:5, 984-1001.
Janes, M. C. 1996. "A Review Of The Development Of Technology Assessment." InternationalJournal of Technology Management, 11(5-6): 507-522.
Janis, Timothy F, 1997, “Metrics Definition Matrix,” in Sally A. Rood, ed, Proceedings:Technology Transfer Metrics Summit, Technology Transfer Society, 289-295.
Jensen, Richard and Marie Thursby, 2001, “Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing ofUniversity Inventions,” American Economic Review, 91(1) March, pp 240-259.
Jermier, J. M., Knight, D., & Nord, W. R. (1994). Resistance and power in organizations:Agency, subjectivity and the labour process. In "Resistance and power in organizations" (J. M.Jermier, D. Knight, and W. R. Nord, Eds.). Routledge, London.
Jervis, P. 1975. "Innovation and technology transfer -- the roles and characteristics ofindividuals." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-22 (I): 19-26.
Jolly, J.A. and J.W. Creighton 1977. "The technology transfer process: Concepts, framework,and methodology." Journal of Technology Transfer. 1(2).
Jones, R., Ed. 1988. "In this high technology success story, everybody benefits." Research &Development. 74-78.
Joshi, B. 1977. "International transfer of technology system." IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement. EM-24 (3): 86-93.
Jurison, J. (2000, October-December). Perceived value and technology adoption across four enduser groups. Journal of End User Computing, 12(4), 21-28.
K
Kabiraj T. and S. Marjit 1993. "International Technology-Transfer Under Potential Threat OfEntry--A Cournot-Nash Framework." Journal of Development Economics, 42(1): 75-88.
Kaimowitz, D. 1993. "The Role Of Nongovernmental Organizations In Agricultural-ResearchAnd Technology-Transfer In Latin-America." World Development, 21(7): 1139-1150.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). "The change masters: Innovation & entrepreneurship in the Americancorporation." Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Kanter, R. M. (1987, May). Managing traumatic change: Avoiding the 'unlucky 13'.Management Review, 76(5), 23-24.
Kanter, R. M. (1988, January). Change masters: Playing a new game. Executive Excellence,5(1), 8-9.
Kanter, R. M. (1988, March). Change masters vs. change stiflers. Executive Excellence, 5(3), 12-13.
121
Kanter, R. M. (1989). "When giants learn to dance." Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Kanter, R. M. (1989, December). "Improving the acceptance and use of new technology:Organizational and inter-organizational challenges." (Working Paper 90-043). Division ofResearch, Harvard Business School.
Kanter, R. M. (1989, Summer). Swimming in newstreams: Mastering innovation dilemmas.California Management Review, 31(4), 45-69.
Kanter, R. M. (1990, November/December). Thinking across boundaries. Harvard BusinessReview, 68(6), 9.
Kanter, R. M. (1991, January/February). Championing change: An interview with Bell Atlantic'sCEO Raymond Smith. Harvard Business Review, 69(1), 118-130.
Kanter, R. M. (1991, July/August). Change: Where to begin. Harvard Business Review, 69(4), 8.
Kanter, R. M. (1991, May/June). Transcending business boundaries: 12,000 world managersview change. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 151-164.
Kanter, R. M. (1992, January/February). Discipline! Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 7.
Kanter, R. M. (1992, Mar/April). Six certainties for CEOs. Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 7.
Kanter, R. M. (1992, May/June). Ourselves versus ourselves. Harvard Business Review, 70(3),8.
Kanter, R. M. (1993, April). Mastering change. Executive Excellence, 10(4), 11.
Kanter, R. M. (1996, December 2). Can giants dance in cyberspace? Forbes (ASAP), 247-248.
Kanter, R. M. (1997). "Frontiers of management." Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Kanter, R. M. (1999, May/June). From spare change to real change. Harvard Business Review,77(3), 122-132.
Kanter, R. M. (2000, May/June). The enduring skills of change leaders. Ivey Business Journal,64(5), 31-36.
Kanter, R. M., and Corn, R. I. (1994). Do cultural differences make a business difference?Contextual factors affecting cross-cultural relationship success. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 13(2), 5-23.
Kanter, R. M., and Fonvielle, W. H. (1987, January). When to persist and when to give up.Management Review, 76(1), 14-15.
Kanter, R. M., and Parkes, C. (1991, June). In search of a single culture. Business (London), 58-66.
Kanter, R. M., and Richardson, L. (1991, May). Engines of progress: Designing and runningentrepreneurial vehicles in established companies - the Enter-Prize Program at Ohio Bell, 1985-1990. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(3), 209-229.
Kanter, R. M., and Stein, B. A. (1992, November). New models, but where's the process? --Transforming Organizations edited by Thomas A. Kochan and Michael Useem. ContemporarySociology, 21(6), 758.
122
Kanter, R. M., North, J., Bernstein, A. P., and Williamson, A. (1990, November). Engines ofprogress: Designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 5(6), 415-27.
Kanter, R. M., North, J., Richardson, L., Ingols, C., and Zolner, J. (1991, March). Engines ofprogress: designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies: Raytheon'snew product center, 1969-1989. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(2), 145-163.
Kanter, R. M., Richardson, L., North, J., and Morgan, E. (1991, January). Engines of progress:Designing and running entrepreneurial vehicles in established companies; the new ventureprocess at Eastman Kodak, 1983-1989. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(1), 63-82.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (compiled by). (1992). "The challenge oforganizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it." Free Press, NewYork, NY.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, John Kao, and Fred Wiersema, eds. Innovation: Breakthrough Thinkingat 3M, DuPont, GE, Pfizer and Rubbermaid, Harper Business, 1997, pp. 84-85
Kaplan, A. ( 1964). "The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science." ChandlerPub. Co., San Francisco.
Kaplan, E. 1972. Japan: The Government-Business Relationship. (Washington, DC: USGPO).
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., and Chervany, N. L. (1999, June). Information technologyadoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs.MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213.
Karani, P. and J. B. Ojwang 1996. "Intellectual property in international relations--Technologytransfer." Science Communication, 17(3): 326-337.
Kash, D. E. and R. W. Rycroft 1995. "United-States Federal-Government Research-And-Development And Commercialization—You Can't Get There From Here." R&D Management,25(1): 71-89.
Kassicieh and Radosevich, From Lab to Market, Plenum Press, New York, 1994.
Kassicieh, S. K. & H. R. Radosevich. 1991. "A Model for Technology-Transfer Group-DecisionSupport Systems and Electronic Meetings." Journal of Technology Transfer, 16(3): 43.
Kassicieh, S. K., H. R. Radosevich and J. Senker 1996. "From Lab To Market--Commercialization Of Public-Sector Technology" Research Policy, 25(3): 482-484.
Katrak, H. 1997. "The private use of publicly funded industrial technologies in developingcountries: Empirical tests for an industrial research institute in India." World Development,25(9): 1541-1550.
Katz, R., E. S. Rebentisch and T. J. Alien 1996. "A Study Of Technology-Transfer In AMultinational Cooperative Joint
Kautz, K., & Pries-Heje, J. (1996). "Diffusion and adoption of information technology(Proceedings of the first IFIP WG 8.6 working conference on the diffusion and adoption ofinformation technology)" , Oslo, Norway, Chapman & Hall, London.
Kimzy, Charles H., "Technology Outsourcing in the U.S and Japan." Vol. 45, No. 4, July -August 2002 pp. 36-42
123
Kniel, C.R., “Laboratory Technology Research (LTR) Industry Partner Survey,” E.O. LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory, October 1998 (LBID-2253).(http://www.lbl.gov/tt/collaboration/partnerships/LTR_Survey/index.html)
Kottenstette, J.P. and Rusnak, J.J., 'Transfer and Diffusion: Two Ways to Transmit Technology,"Vol. 16, No. 4, July, 1973, pp. 24-27
Krantz, J. (1999, March). Comment on "Challenging 'resistance to change'". Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 35(1), 42-44.
Kuilboer, J. P., and Ashrafi, N. (1999). Software process improvement deployment: Anempirical perspective. Journal of Information Technology Management, 10(3-4), 35-47.
Kunnathur, A. S., Ahmed, M. U., and Charles, R. J. S. (1996, January). Expert systems adoption:An analytical study of managerial issues and concerns. Information Management, 30(1), 15-25.
Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systemsimplementation. In "Critical issues in information systems research" (R. J. Boland, Jr., and R. A.Hirschheim, Eds.), pp. 227-251. John Wiley, Chichester, England.
L
Laamanen T. and E. Autio 1996. "Dominant dynamic complementarities and technology-motivated acquisitions of new, technology-based firms." International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 12(7-8): 769-786.
Lai, V. S. and J. L. Guynes, 1997. “An assessment of the influence of organizationalcharacteristics on information technology adoption decision: a discriminative approach,” IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 44(2), pp 146-157.
Lam, A. 1997. "Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration andknowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures." Organization Studies, 18(6): 973-996.
Lambe C. J. and R. E. Spekman 1997. "Alliances, external technology acquisition, anddiscontinuous technological change." Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 14(2): 102-116.
Lambright, W. H. 1979. Technology Transfer to Cities. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Lambright, W.H. and Teich, A.H. 1976. "Technology transfer as a problem in interorganizationalrelationships." Administration and Society 8(1).
Lange, R., McDade, S., and Oliva, T. A. (2001, March). Technological choice and networkexternalities: A catastrophe model analysis of firm software adoption for competing operatingsystems. Structural Change & Economic Dynamics, 12 (1), 29-57.
Large D. W. and D. W. Barclay 1992. "Technology-Transfer To The Private-Sector--A Field-Study Of Manufacturer Buying Behavior." Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 9(1):26-43.
Large, D. W. & K. Belinko. 1995. "Building Successful Technology Transfer Teams - A Theoryof Cascading Commitment." Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(1): 67.
Larsen, J. and R. Widgard 1987. "Industry-university technology transfer in microelectronics.'Policy Studies Review, 6: 584-595.
Larsen, T. ( 2001). The phenomenon of diffusion: Red herrings and future promises. In"Diffusing software product and process innovations (Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.6
124
fourth working conference on diffusing software product and process innovations)" (Ardis,Mark A. and Marcolin, Barbara L., Eds), Banff, Canada, pp. 35-50. Kluwer Academic Press,Boston.
Larsen, T. J., & McGuire, E. (Eds.). (1998). "Information systems innovation and diffusion:issues and directions." Idea, Hershey, PA.
Lassila, K. S., and Brancheau, J. C. (1999, Fall). Adoption and utilization of commercialsoftware packages: Exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 16(2), 63-90.
Lauer, R. D. 1995. "Scientists and the State-Domestic Structure and International Context."Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(2): 55.
Lawrence, P. , and Lorsch, J. (1967 ). "Organization and environment: Managing differentiationand integration." Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Lederman, L. L. 1994. "A Comparative Analysis Of Civilian Technology Strategies AmongSome Nations - France, The Federal Republic Of Germany, Japan, The United Kingdom AndThe United States" (Part Of A Symposium On Technology Transfer And Public Policy). PolicyStudies Journal, 22(2): 279-95.
Lee T. J., M. H. Yang and Z. T. Bae 1998. "The improvement of spin-offs from national nuclearR&D activities in Korea" Nuclear Energy-Journal Of The British Nuclear Energy Society, 37(5):337-341.
Lee, C. 1988. "The Role Of The Government And R&D Infrastructure For TechnologyDevelopment." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 33: 33-54.
Lee, C., Z. T. Bae and J. J. Lee 1994. "Strategies For Linking Vertical Cooperative Research-And-Development To Commercialization In Korea." Journal Of Product InnovationManagement, 11(4): 325-335.
Lee, Y. and R. Gaertner 1994. "Technology-Transfer From University To Industry - A Large-Scale Experiment With Technology Development And Commercialization." Policy StudiesJournal, 22(2): 384-399.
Lee, Y. S. 1996."'Technology transfer' and the research university: A search for the boundariesof university-industry collaboration." Research Policy, 25(6): 843-863.
Lee, Y. S. 1998. "University-industry collaboration on technology transfer: Views from the ivorytower." Policy Studies Journal, 26(1): 69-84.
Lee, Y. S. ed. 1994. "Technology Transfer And Public Policy-- Preparing For The Twenty-FirstCentury." (Symposium) Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 259-399.
Lehman, E.J. 1986. "Opportunities for states to link businesses with federal technologies andresources." Technology Transfer Society International Symposium Proceedings 1986.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988, October). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology andorganization. Research Policy, 17(5), 251-267.
Levin, M. 1993. "Technology-Transfer As A Learning And Developmental Process - AnAnalysis Of Norwegian Programs On Technology-Transfer." Technovation, 13(8): 497-518.
Levine, L. 1994. "Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology(Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 Working Conference)" , Pittsburgh, PA, North-Holland,Amsterdam.
125
Levine, L. ( 1997). An ecology of resistance. In "Facilitating technology transfer throughpartnership: Learning from practice and research (Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.6International Working Conference on Diffusion, Adoption and Implementation of InformationTechnology)" (McMaster, Tom, Mumford, E., Swanson, E. B., Warboys, B., and Wastell,David, Eds.), Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, pp. 163-174. Chapman & Hall, London.
Libicki, M., et al. (2000). “Scaffolding the New Web: Standards and Standards Policy for theDigital Economy.” RAND, Santa Monica, California, 2000.
Lichtenberg, F. R. and B. V. de la Potterie 1998. "International R&D spillovers: A comment."European Economic Review, 42(8): 1483-1491.
Lien, A.P., "Acquiring and Selling Technology: The Role of the Middleman," Vol. 22, No. 3,May, 1979, pp. 29-31
Link, A and G Tassey. forthcoming. "Standards and the Diffusion of Advanced Technologies."Evaluation and Program Planning.
Link, A. 1982. "A Disaggregated Analysis of Industrial R&D: Product versus ProcessInnovation," in The Transfer and Utilization of Technical Knowledge. D. Sahal (ed.) (Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath).
Link, A. 1983. "Alternative Sources of Technology: An Analysis of Induced Innovations."Managerial and Decision Economics.
Link, A. and B. Zmud 1987. "External Sources of Technical Knowledge." Economic Letters,July.
Link, A.N. and J. Rees, 1990, “Firm Size, University Based Research and the Returns to R&D,”Small Business Economics, 2, 25-32.
Linsteadt, G.F. and L. Doig III 1987. "Maintaining the high-tech edge: government-industrytechnology transfer and the federal laboratory system in California." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 12(1).
Linstone, H. A. (1991). Multiple perspectives on technological diffusion: Insights and lessons. In"Diffusion of technologies and social behavior" (N. Naki_enovi_, and A. Grübler, Eds.), pp. 53-92. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Liyanage, S. 1995. "Breeding Innovation Clusters Through Collaborative Research Networks."Technovation, 15(9): 553-567.
Long, W. J. 1992. "Proliferating Problems--United-States Management Of Strategic TechnologyAfter The Cold-War." Technological Society, 14(4): 363-376.
Lopata, C. L. (June 1993). The cooperative implementation of information technology: a processof mutual adaptation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
Lopes, S. 1994. "Technology Transfer in the Americas." Journal of Technology Transfer, 19(2):25.
Lopez Eguilaz, M. J. and S. Perez 1997. "The measurement of technology transfer: Situation inSpain." International Journal of Technology Management, 13(2): 153-164.
Lucas, H. C., Jr., Ginsberg, M. J., and Schultz, R. L. (1990). "Information systemsimplementation: Testing a structural model." Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
126
Lynn, L. H., N. M. Reddy and J. D. Aram 1996. "Linking Technology And Institutions--TheInnovation Community Framework." Research Policy, 25(1): 91-106.
Lyytinen, K. (1991). Penetration of information technology in organizations: A comparativestudy using stage models and transaction costs. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 3.
Lyytinen, K. , & Damsgaard, J. (2001). What's wrong with the diffusion of innovation theory? Acase of complex and networked technology. In "Diffusing software product and processinnovations (Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.6 fourth working conference on diffusingsoftware product and process innovations)" (Ardis, Mark A. and Marcolin, Barbara L., Eds),Banff, Canada, pp. 173-189. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston.
M
Maansaari, J., and Iivari, J. (1999, July). The evolution of CASE usage in Finland between 1993and 1996. Information & Management, 36(1), 37-53.
Machiup, F. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States.(Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Madu, C. N. 1990. "Cognitive Mapping in Technology Transfer." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 15(3): 33.
Madu, C., & Jacob, R. 1989. "Strategic planning in technology transfer: A dialectical approach."Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 35: 327-338.
Mahajan, V and E. Muller. 1996. "Timing, Diffusion, and Substitution of SuccessiveGenerations of Technological Innovations: The IBM Mainframe Case." TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 51(2): 109-133.
Mahajan, V., and Peterson, R. A. (1985). "Models for innovation diffusion." Sage, Beverly Hills,CA.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Wind, Y. (Eds.). (2000). "New-product diffusion models." KluwerAcademic, Boston.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., and Bass, F. M. (1990, January). New product diffusion models inmarketing: A review and directions for research. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-26.
Maier, F. H. (1998, Winter). New product diffusion models in innovation management -- asystem dynamics perspective. System Dynamics Review, 14(4), 285-308.
Maital, S., A. Frenkel, H. Grupp, and K. Koschatzky. 1994. "Relation between scientific andtechnological excellence and export performance - theoretical model and empirical test for ECcountries." Science & Public Policy, 21 (3): 138.
Major, J. 1988. "Some practical intellectual property aspects of technology transfer."International Journal of Technology Management, 3(1-2): 43-50.
Makino, S. and A. Delios 1996. "Local knowledge transfer and performance: Implications foralliance formation in Asia." Journal of International Business Studies, (5): 905-927.
Malecki, E. 1981. "Government Funded R&D: Some Regional Economic Implications." TheProfessional Geographer, 33(I):72-82.
Malecki, E. 1981. "Science Technology and Regional Economic Development: Review andProspects." Research Policy, 10: 312-334.
127
Malerba, F., L. Orsenigo and P. Peretto 1997. "Persistence of innovative activities, sectoralpatterns of innovation and international technological specialization." International Journal OfIndustrial Organization, 15(6): 801-826.
Malik K., "How BICC Cables Transferred a New Process Technology From R&D toManufacturing," Vol. 44, No. 4, July-August 2001. pp. 55
Manning, G.K. (ed.) 1974. Technology transfer: success and failures. (San Francisco, CA: SanFrancisco Press).
Mansfield, E. 1975. "International Technology Transfer: Forms, Resource Requirements, AndPolicies." American Economic Review, 65: 372-376.
Mansfield, E., A. Romeo, M. Schwartz, D. Teece, S. Wagner, and P. Branch 1982. Technologytransfer, productivity, and economic policy. (New York: Norton Publishing.)
Mansfield, E., A. Romeo, M. Schwartz, D. Teece, S. Wagner, and P. Branch 1983. "Newfindings in technology transfer, productivity and development." Research Management, (March-April): 11-20.
Mansfield, E., Romeo, A., Schwartz, M., Teece, D., Wagner, S. and Brach, P., "New Findings inTechnology Transfer Productivity and Economic Policy," Vol. 26, No. 2, March-April, 1983, pp.11-20
Mansfield, Edwin, "Economic Impact of International Technology Transfer," Vol. 17, No. 1,January, 1974, pp. 7-11
Mansfield, Edwin, 1980. “Basic Research and Productivity Increase in Manufacturing,”American Economic Review, 70, 863-73.
Marazita, C. F., 1991. "Technology Transfer in the United States: Industrial Research atEngineering Research Centers Versus the Technological Needs of US Industry." TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 39(4): 397-410.
Marcus, A. D., “Bose and Arrows,” Wall Street Journal, July 20, 1999.
Markhan, S.K, "Moving Technology From Lab to Market"," Vol. 45, No. 6, November-December, 2002, pp 31-42
Markus, M. L. (1983, June). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of theACM, 26(8), 430-444 .
Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. (1988, May). Information technology and organizational change:Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.
Marshall, T. E., Byrd, T. A., Gardiner, L. R., and Rainer, R. K. Jr. (2000, July-September).Technology acceptance and performance: An investigation into requisite knowledge. InformationResources Management Journal, 13(3), 33-45.
Martinet, E., J. E. Sinton and B. M. Haddad, 1997. "International technology transfer for climatechange mitigation and the cases of Russia and China." Annual Review Of Energy And TheEnvironment, 22: 357-401.
Marvasti, A., 1998. "An assessment of the international technology transfer systems and the newLaw of the Sea." Ocean and Coastal Management 39(3): 197-210.
Mathur, S. and A. P. Sinha 1997. "Transfer of computer technology in India--Case of B-CACHI." Economic and Political Weekly, 32(22): M70-M76.
128
Matkin, G. W. "Technology Transfer And Public Policy--Lessons From A Case Study" (Part OfA Symposium On Technology Transfer And Public Policy). Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 371-383.
Matlack , C., 1987. "The administration and congress are eager to enlist university researchers tomake the nation more competitive, but skeptics wonder of innovation can be programmed."National Journal. 1348-1353.
Mattila, 0., 1986. "Transferring technology across borders -- from the point of view of a neutralcountry." International Journal of Technology Management, 1(1-2): 13-21.
McFeeley, B. (1996, February). "IDEAL: A user’s guide for software process improvement."(CMU/SEI-96-HB-001). Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
Mclntyre, J. and D. Papp eds., 1986. Political Economy of International Technology Transfer.
McMaster, T., 2001. The illusion of diffusion in information systems research. In "Diffusingsoftware product and process innovations (Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.6 fourth workingconference on diffusing software product and process innovations)" (Ardis, Mark A. andMarcolin, Barbara L., Eds), Banff, Canada, pp. 67-86. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston.
McMaster, T., Mumford, E., Swanson, E. B., Warboys, B., & Wastell, D. (1997). "Facilitatingtechnology transfer through partnership: Learning from practice and research (Proceedings of theIFIP TC8 WG8.6 international working conference on diffusion, adoption and implementation ofinformation technology)" , Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, Chapman & Hall, London.
McMaster, T., Vidgen, R. T., & Wastell, D. G. (1997). Technology transfer: diffusion ortranslation? In "Facilitating technology transfer through partnership: Learning from practice andresearch (Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG8.6 international working conference on diffusion,adoption and implementation of information technology)" (McMaster, Tom, Mumford, Enid,Swanson, E. Burton, Warboys, Brian, and Wastell, David, Eds.), Ambleside, Cumbria, UK, pp.64-75. Chapman & Hall, London.
Medcof J. W., 1997. "A taxonomy of internationally dispersed technology units and itsapplication to management issues." R&D Management, 27(4): 301-318.
Melkers, Julia E. and Susan E. Cozzens, 1997, “A Review of Performance Measurement in StateScience and Technology-Based Economic Development Programs,” in Sally A. Rood, ed,Proceedings: Technology Transfer Metrics Summit, Technology Transfer Society, 109-117.
Mendelsohn, L. D., 1992. "Technology-Transfer Policy - Its Role As A Scientific AndTechnical-Information Policy And Its Impact On Technological Growth." Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science, 43(1): 80-88.
Merrifield, B., 1986. "R&D Limited Partnerships Are Starting to Bridge the Invention-Translation Gap." Research Management. 29(3): 9-13.
Merril, S.B. and John, C.T., "You Can Measure External Research Progress," Vol. 44, No. 3,May-June, 2001, pp. 14
Merron, K. (1993, Winter). Let's bury the term "resistance". Organization Development Journal,11(4), 77-86.
Mervis, J., 1994. "Defense Conversion Comes To Campus." Science, 263 (March 25): 1676-8.
Metcalf, J. S., 1981. "Impulse and diffusion in the study of technological change." Futures, 13:347-359.
129
Meyerson, D. , and Martin, J. (1987, November). Cultural change: An integration of threedifferent views. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623-647.
Mian, S. A. 1994. "United-States University-Sponsored Technology Incubators--An OverviewOf Management, Policies And Performance." Technovation, 14(8): 515-528.
Miller, W. R., and Rollnick, S. (1991). "Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to changeaddictive behavior." Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Mogavero, L. N. and R. S. Shane. 1982. What Every Engineer Should Know About TechnologyTransfer and Innovation. (New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.).
Molas-Gallart, J. 1997. "Which way to go? Defence technology and the diversity of 'dual-use'technology transfer." Research Policy, 26(3): 367-385.
Molina, A. H. 1992. "Europe's IT strategy moves closer to the users - the Open MicroprocessorSystems Initiative (OMI)." Science & Public Policy, 19 (3): 145.
Moodie, M. 1995. "Beyond Proliferation - The Challenge Of Technology Diffusion."Washington Quarterly, 18(2): 183-202.
Moon M. J. and S. Bretschneider 1997. "Can state government actions affect innovation and itsdiffusion?: An extended communication model and empirical test." Technological Forecastingand Social Change, 54 (1): 57-77.
Moore, G. A. (1991). "Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling technology products tomainstream customers." HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Moore, G. A., 1991. Crossing the Chasm, Harper Collins, New York.
Moore, G. A., and R. McKenna, 2002. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling TechnologyProducts to Mainstream Customers. HarperBusiness, New York.
Moore, J.R. 1969. "The technology transfer process between a large science-oriented and a largemarket-oriented company--the North American Rockwell challenge." IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management. EM-16 (3): 111-115.
Moore, J. S. “Industrially Sponsored University Research in Information Technology: SomeRecommendations Regarding Intellectual Property Agreements,” July 23, 2002(www.cra.org/Activities/snowbird/2002/slides/ip-memo.pdf).
Moore, R.F., "A Corporate-wide Technology Communication System," Vol. 15, No. 1, January,1972, pp. 43-46.
More E. and H. Irwin 1995. "Technology-Transfer--Technocultures, Power AndCommunication--The Australian Experience." Journal of Information Science, 21(3): 149-159.
Morgan, E. J. and N. K. Crawford ?. "Technology transfer centres and local enterpriseinitiatives." International Journal of Technology Management, 3(3): 361-366.
Morgan, M. G. and R. M. White, R M. 1994. "A Design For New National Laboratories." Issuesin Science and Technology, 10(2): 29-32.
Morone, J. and R. Ivins. 1982. "Problems and Opportunities in Technology Transfer from theNational Laboratories to Industry. Research Management, 25(3) May, 35-44.
Mortenson, P. K. 1990. "Changing expectations--COSMIC in the New World." Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 15 (1 & 2): 67.
130
Mowery, D. C. "International Collaborative Ventures and the Commercialization of NewTechnologies," in Technology and the Wealth of Nations, N. Rosenberg, R. Landau, and D.Mowery, eds. (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California, 1992), Chapter 13.
Mowery, D. C. (1998). “Collaborative R&D: How Effective Is It?” Issues in Science andTechnology, Vol. 15, No.1, pp. 37-44.
Mowery, David, Richard Nelson, Bhaven Sampat, and Arvids Ziedonis. 2001. “The Growth ofPatenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-DoleAct of 1980.” Research Policy 30:99-119.
Mowery, David, and Bhaven Sampat. 2001. “Patenting and Licensing University Inventions:Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation.” Industrial and Corporate Change . 10:317-355.
Mowery, David, and Bhaven Sampat. 2001. “University Patents, Patent Policies, and PatentPolicy Debates: 1925-1980.” Industrial and Corporate Change. 10: 781-814.
Mowery, David, Bhaven Sampat, and Arvids Ziedonis. 2001. “Learning to Patent? InstitutionalExperience and the Quality of University Patents.” !Management Science 48: 73-89.
Mowery D. C., and J.E. Oxiey and B. S. Silverman 1996. "Strategic alliances and interfirmknowledge transfer." Strategic Management Journal 17: 77-91.
Mowery D.C. and J. E. Oxiey 1995. "Inward Technology-Transfer And Competitiveness - TheRole Of National Innovation Systems." Cambridge Journal Economics, 19(1): 67-93.
Mowery, D. C. and R. N. Langlois 1996. "Spinning off and spinning on(?): The federalgovernment role in the development of the US computer software industry." Research Policy,25(6): 947-966.
Mulkay, M. 1972. "The Social Process Of Innovation." (London: Macmillan).
Myers, W. (1998, April). Why software developers refuse to improve. IEEE Computer, 110-112.
N
Nataraajan, R. and S. K. Chawla 1994. "Random Transfer Of Technology - An UnexploredPhenomenon." Journal Technology Transfer, 19(1): 27-32.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1991. Finding Common Ground: USExport Controls in a Changed Global Environment, Panel on the Future Design andImplementation of US National Security Export Controls. (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress).
National Governors' Association 1983. Technology and Growth: State initiatives in technologicalinnovation. (Washington, DC: National Governors Association.)
National Research Council, 1979. Technology Transfer: The Research Process and Creating aProductive Environment. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press) .
National Science Board (NSB). 2002. “Science & Engineering Indicators--2002.” (NSB-02-1)Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation. 1975. "Federal Technology Transfer: An Analysis of CurrentPrograms Characteristics and Practices." Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
131
Nau, H. R. 1976. Technology Transfer and US Foreign Policy. (Praeger).
Nelson C. W. 1996. "From free money to free market." International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 12(7-8): 748-759.
Nelson R. 1984. High-Technology Policies - A Five Nation Comparison. (Washington: AEI).
Nelson, Richard, and Bhaven Sampat. 2001. “Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor ShapingEconomic Performance.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 44:31-54.
Nelson, A. C., and Rottman, J. (1996). Before and after CASE adoption. Information &Management, 31, 193-202.
Nieuwenhuysen, P. and P. Vanouplines 1998. "Document+program hybrids on the Internet andtheir impact on information transfer." Online CDROM Review, 22(2): 55-72.
Niosi, J., P. Hanel, and L. Fiset 1995. "Technology-Transfer To Developing-Countries ThroughEngineering Firms--The Canadian Experience." World Development, 23(10): 1815-1824.
Norling, Parry M., Jan P. Herring, Wayne A. Rosenkrans, Jr., "Putting Competitive Intelligenceto Work." Vol.43 No. 5, September-October 2000. pp 23
Nuckolls, J. 1994. "Lawrence Livermore: Commercial Spinoffs From Defense And CivilianResearch And Development Programs." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy,9(Spring): 101-4.
O
Oakey, R. P., Hare, P. G., Balazs, K. 1990. "Diffusion of process innovations in an EastEuropean economy - some conceptual observations." Science & Public Policy, 17 (2): 97.
Office of Technology Policy, “Recent Trends in Federal Lab Technology Transfer: FY 1999-2000 Biennial Report,” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, May 2002.(http://www.ta.doc.gov/reports/TechPolicy/FedLabTechTrans.pdf)
Oik, P. and K. Xin 1997. "Changing the Policy on Government- Industry Cooperative R&DArrangements: Lessons from the US Effort." International Journal of Technology Management,13(7-8).
Oiken, H. 1987. "Technology transfer: starting your own high-tech business." InternationalJournal of Technology Management, 2 (3-4): 543-44.
Oiken, Hyman, "Cooperation Between Private Industry and the National Laboratories," Vol. 28,No.2, March-April, 1985, p.6
O'Keefe, T.G. 1982. "Evaluation technology transfer: Some problems and solutions." Journal ofTechnology Transfer. 6(2): 53.
Olayan, H.B., 'Technology Transfer in Developing Nations," Vol. 42, No. 3, May-June, 1999,pp.43
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1984. Industry and University, NewForms of Cooperation and Communication. (Paris: OECD).
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993, September). CASE tools as organizational change: Investigatingincremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309-40.
132
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. (1991, March). Studying information technology inorganizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.
Orr, J. F. 1979. Technology transfer and the diffusion of innovations: a working bibliographywith annotations. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1987. Reviews ofNational Science and Technology Policy: Netherlands. (Paris: OECD).
Overcoming Barriers to Collaborative Research, Report of a Workshop,” Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, National Academy Press, 1999.(http://www.nap.edu/books/0309067847/html/)
P
Pakes, A. and Schankerman, M. 1984. "The rate of obsolescence of patents, research gestationlags, and the private rate of return to research resources." in R&D, Patents and Productivity. Z.Griliches (ed.) (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) 73-88.
Pandia, R.M. 1989."Transfer of technology: Techniques for chemical and pharmaceuticalprojects." Project Management. 20 (3) .
Papaconstantinou G., N. Sakurai and A. Wyckoff 1998. "Domestic and international product-embodied R&D diffusion." Research Policy, 27(3): 301-314.
Papadakis, M. 1995. "Federal Laboratory Missions. Products, and Competitiveness." Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 20(1): 54.
Papadakis, Mary C., “The Reality of Metrics and the Quest for Magic Bullets,” in Rood, Sally A.and Louis G. Tornatzky, eds, Roundtable on Technology Transfer Metrics, Technology TransferSociety 22nd Annual Conference, 19-23.
Park, W. G. 1995. "International R&D Spillovers And OECD Economic Growth." EconomicInquiry, 33(October): 571-91.
Parker, D. D., D. Zilberman 1993. "University Technology Transfers - Impacts On Local AndUnited-States Economies." Contemporary Policy Issues, 11(2): 87-99.
Pavitt, K. 1985. "Technology transfer amongst the industrially advanced countries: anoverview." in International Technology Transfer. N. Rosenberg and R. Frischtak (eds.) (Praeger).
Pavitt, K. 1991. "What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful?" Research Policy, 20(2):109.
Pavitt, K. 1992. "Internationalisation of technological innovation." Science & Public Policy,19(2): 119.
Pearce, F. 1992. "The Hidden Cost Of Technology Transfer." New Scientist, 134(May 9): 36-9.
Pejovich, S. 1996. "Property-Rights And Technological Innovation." Social Philosophy &Policy, 13(2): 168-180.
Pensyi, M. 1990. "Emerging Roles for Academic Librarians in the Technology TransferProcess." Science & Technology Libraries, 11(2): 29.
Penzias, A.A., "Technology in the Coming Century," Vol. 42, No. 1, January-February, 1999,pp.52.
133
Perchorowicz, J. T., K. J. Dakin, & J. Lindsey. 1991. "Technology Transfer - Financing andCommercializing the High Tech Product or Service from Research to Roll Out." Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 16 (3): 62.
Peters, T., and Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). "In search of excellence: Lessons from America'sbest-run companies." Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R. I. (2000). "The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turnknowledge into action." Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pfleeger, Shari Lawrence, “Understanding and improving technology transfer in softwareengineering,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 47, 1999, pp 111-124.
Pianta, M. 1995. "Technology And Growth In OECD Countries, 1970- 1990"(Part Of SpecialIssue On Technology And Innovations). Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(February): 175-87.
Pimentabueno, J. A. and R. T. Correa 1993. "A New Look At The United-States Pattern OfFederal Research-And-Development Spending--Preliminary Lessons For Newly IndustrializingEconomies." Technovation, 13(2): 101-107.
Pinelli, T. E., J. M. Kennedy, and R. 0. Barclay. 1990. "The Role of the InformationIntermediary in the Diffusion of Aerospace Knowledge." Science & Technology Libraries, 11,(2): 59.
Pinelli, T. E., R. 0. Barclay and J. M. Kennedy "The United- States-Government TechnicalReport And The Transfer Of Federally Funded Aerospace R-And-D." Government PublicationsReview, 20(4): 393-411.
Piper, W. S. and S. Naghshpour 1996. "Government technology transfer: The effective use ofboth push and pull marketing strategies." International Journal of Technology Management,12(1): 85-94.
Pope, K. 1992. "Getting Away From Military Technology." The Sciences, 32 (July/August): 28.
Portnow, J. 1994. "Technology Transfer and Assistive Devices for Disabled People at Home.Journal of Technology Transfer, 19 (2): 7.
Potter, B.V., "Effective Information and Technology Transfer in Multinational R&D," Vol. 14,No. 1, January, 1971, pp. 20-27.
Potworowski, J. A. 1991. "A Technology-Utilization Framework for Developing Countries."Journal of Technology Transfer, 16 (1): 33.
Powell W. W. and J. Owen-Smith 1998. "Universities and the marker for intellectual property inthe life sciences." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2): 253-277.
Premkumar, G., and Potter, M. (1995, May/August). Adoption of computer aided softwareengineering (CASE) technology: An innovation adoption perspective. Data Base for Advances inInformation Systems, 26(2-3), 105-23.
Prescott, M. B. and S.A. Conger, 1995. “Information technology innovations: a classification byIT locus of impact and research approach, Data Base for Advances in Information Systems,26(2/3), pp 20-41.
Press, E., and Washburn, J., “The Kept University,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, p.39.
134
Price, S. C., and P. Z. Sobocinski. (2001). “Gap Funding in the United States and Canada,” TheJournal of the Association of University Technology Managers,Volume XIII. Prosser, G. A.1995. "The Role of Incentives in the Deployment of Technologies from Cooperative Researchand Development." Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(2): 13.
“Public Investments in University Research: Reaping the Benefits.” Report of the Expert Panelon the Commercialization of University Research, presented to The Prime Minister’s AdvisoryCouncil on Science and Technology. London, 1999.
Q
Quinn, J.B. 1969. "Technology transfer by multinational companies." Harvard Business Review,Nov-Dec.
R
Rabino, S. 1989. "High technology firms and factors influencing transfer of R&D facilities."Journal of Business Research. 18 (3).
Radosevich, R. 1995. "A Model For Entrepreneurial Spin-Offs From Public TechnologySources." International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7-8): 879-893.
Rahm, D. 1993. "United-States Public-Policy And Emerging Technologies--The Case Of Solar-Energy." Energy Policy, 21(4): 374-380.
Rahm, D. 1994. "Academic Perceptions Of University-Firm Technology-Transfer." PolicyStudies Journal, 22(2): 267-278.
Rahm, D., B. Bozeman and M. Crow. 1988. "Domestic Technology Transfer andCompetitiveness." Public Administration Review, 48: 969-78.
Rai, A. (1995, May). External information source and channel effectiveness and the diffusion ofCASE innovations: An empirical study. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 93-102.
Rai, A., and Howard, G. S. (1993, Summer). An organizational context for CASE innovation.Information Resources Management Journal, 6(3), 21-34.
Rai, A., and Howard, G. S. (1994, March). Propagating CASE usage for software development:An empirical investigation of key organizational correlates. Omega (Oxford), 22(2), 133-147.
Rai, A., and Patnayakuni, R. (1996, Fall). A structural model for CASE adoption behavior.Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 205-34.
Ramiller, N. C. (1994, March). Perceived compatibility of information technology innovationsamong secondary adopters: Toward a reassessment. Journal of Engineering & TechnologyManagement, 11(1), 1-23.
Randazzese, L. P. 1996. "Exploring university-industry technology transfer of CAD technology."IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 43(4): 393-401.
Rappa, M. A. and K. Debackere 1992. "Technological Communities And The Diffusion OfKnowledge." R&D Management, 22(3): 209-220.
Raut, L. K. 1995. "R&D Spillover And Productivity Growth-- Evidence From Indian PrivateFirms." Journal of Development Economics, 48(October): 1-23.
135
Ravichandran, T. (2000, Summer). Swiftness and intensity of administrative innovationadoption: An empirical study of TQM in information systems. Decision Sciences, 31(3), 691-724.
Ravichandran, T., and Rai, A. (2000, September). Quality management in systems development:An organizational system perspective. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 381-6+405-10.
Raz, B., & Assa, I. 1988. "A model of coupled technology transfer: A logistic curve approach."Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 33:251-265.
Reams, B. 1986. University-Industry Research Partnerships: The Major Legal Issues In ResearchAnd Development Agreements. (Westport, CT: Quorum).
Rebentisch E. S. and M. Ferretti 1995. "A Knowledge Asset-Based View Of Technology-Transfer In International Joint Ventures." Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,12(1-2): 1-25.
Reddy, N. Mohan and L. Zhao 1990. "International technology transfer: A review." ResearchPolicy, 19: 285-307.
Redwine, S. T., Jr., Becker, L. G., Marmor-Squires, A. B., Martin, R. J., Nash, S. H., & Riddle,W. E. (1984, June). "DoD related software technology requirements, practices, and prospects forthe future." (P-1788). Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA.
Redwine, Samuel, and William E. Riddle, 1985. “Software technology maturation.” Proceedingsof the Eighth International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press,Los Alamitos, California, pp 189-200.
Reid, P. P. and A. Schriesheim, eds. 1996. Foreign Participation in US Research andDevelopment: Asset or Liability. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
Reid, P. P. and A. Schriesheim, eds. 1996. Prospering in a Global Economy: ForeignParticipation in US Research and Development. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
Reingold, N. 1994. "Science And Government In The United-States Since 1945." History OfScience, 32(98, part 4): 361-386.
Reisman, A. 1989. "Technology transfer: A taxonomic view." Technology transfer. Summer-Fall.
Reisman, A. and L. Zhao. 1991. "A Taxonomy of Technology- Transfer-Transaction Types."Journal of Technology Transfer, 16(2): 38.
Repenning, N. P. (2002, March-April). A simulation-based approach to understanding thedynamics of innovation implementation. Organization Science, 13(2), 109-127.
Rhea, John, "Prospecting for Science in the Former Soviet Union," Vol. 35, No.6, November-December, 1992, pp. 13-17
Rheingold, N. and M. Rothenberg (eds.) 1987. Scientific Colonialism: A Cross-CulturalComparison. (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press).
Richardson, G. P. (1991). "Feedback thought in social science and systems theory." University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Rifkin, S. (2001, July/August). Why software process innovations are not adopted. IEEESoftware, 10(4), 110-112.
136
Rifkin, S. (2001, May/June). What makes measuring software so hard? IEEE Software, 10(3),41-45.
Risen, J., & Johnston, D. (2002, September 8). Not much has changed in a system that failed:The F.B.I. and C.I.A. missed signals a year ago. Now they do well in capital turf wars. NewYork Times, Section 4, p. 1.
Robb, Walter L. “How Good is Our Research?, Research Technology Management, March/April1991.
Roberts, T. L., Gibson, M. L., Rainer, R. K., and Fields, K. T. (2001, March). Response to'Comments on factors that impact the implementation of a systems development methodology'.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(3), 282-286.
Roberts, T. L., Jr., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., and Rainer, R. K., Jr. (1998, August). Factorsthat impact implementing a system development methodology. IEEE Transactions on SoftwareEngineering, 24(8), 640-649.
Robertson, N.C., 'Technology Acquisition for Corporate Growth," Vol. 35, No. 2,March-April,1992, pp. 26-30
Roessner, D., Ailes, C., Feller, I. and Parker, L., "How Industry Benefits from NSF's EngineeringResearch Centers," Vol. 41, No. 5, September-October, 1998., pp. 40.
Roessner, J. D. and A. Bean. 1991. "How Industry Interacts with Federal Laboratories."Research Technology Management, 34(4): 22.
Roessner, J. D. and A. S. Bean 1993. "Industry Interaction With Federal Labs Pays Off."Research Technology Management, 36(5): 38-40.
Roessner, J. D. and A. Wise 1994. "Public-Policy And Emerging Sources Of Technology AndTechnical-Information Available To Industry." Policy Studies Journal, 22(2): 349-358.
Roessner, J. D. “Patterns of Industry Interaction with Federal Laboratories.” School of PublicPolicy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. March 1993, p. 8.
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press, New York.
Rogers, E. M. and F. F. Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of Innovations: A Cross CulturalApproach.(New York: Free Press).
Romo, J., & Roecks, A. 1988. "Transferring technology transfer into an Air Force unit."Technology Transfer. 54-57.
Rosenberg, N. 1987. "Civilian 'spillovers' from military R&D spending: The U.S. experiencesince World War II." in Strategic Defense and the Western Alliance. S. Lakoff and R.Willoughby (eds.) (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.).
Rosenberg, N. and C. Frischtak, eds. 1985. International Technology Transfer: Concepts,Measures And Comparisons. (New York, NY: Praeger).
Rosenberg, N. and W. G. Vincenti. 1978. The Britannia Bridge: The Generation And DiffusionOf Technological Knowledge. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.).
Rosenbloom, R.S. 1965. Technology transfer-- process and policy: an analysis of the utilizationof technological by-products of military and space R&D. (Washington: National PlanningAssociation.) Special Report No. 62.
137
Roth, G., and Kleiner, A. (2000). "Car launch: The human side of managing change." OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY.
Rothwell, R. 1978. "Some problems of technology transfer into industry: Example from thetextile machinary sector." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-25 (Feb): 15-19.
Rothwell, R. and M. Dodgson 1992. "European Technology Policy Evolution--ConvergenceTowards SMEs and Regional Technology- Transfer." Technovation, 12(4): 223-238.
Rubin, M. 1991. "How Organizations Form R&D Consortia." Journal of Technology Transfer,16 (I): 19.
Russell, A. 1995. "Merging technological paradigms and the knowledge structure in internationalpolitical economy." Science & Public Policy, 22 (2): 106.
Russo, J. & R. C. Herrenkohl. 1990. "Factors Affecting the Transfer of Technology fromIndustry/University Cooperatives to Sponsoring Companies." Journal of Technology Transfer,15(3): 21.
Ryan, T. F., and Bock, D. B. (1992, November). A socio-technical systems viewpoint to CASEtool adoption. Journal of Systems Management, 43(11), 25-9.
S
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., and Greenbaum, C. W. (1985, April). Job experience, persuasion strategyand resistance to change: An experimental study. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 6(2), 157-162.
Sahal, D, ed. 1982. The Transfer and Utilization of Technical Knowledge. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.
Sahal, D. 1982. "The form of technology governs the scope of its transfer" in D. Sahal (ed.) Thetransfer and utilization of technical knowledge. (Lexington, MA: Lexington.)
Salomon, J-J. 1995. "The uncertain quest--mobilising science and technology for development."Science & Public Policy, 22(1): 9.
Sanders, J D. 1994. "Transfer or ?." Journal of Technology Transfer, 19(2): 3.
Sanzmenendez, L. 1995. "Policy Choices, Institutional Constraints And Policy Learning - TheSpanish Science And Technology Policy In The Eighties." International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 10(4-6): 622-641.
Sapienza, A.M. 1989. "Technology transfer: An assessment of the major institutional vehiclesfor diffusion of U.S. biotechnology." Technovation. 9(6).
Scarso E., and E. Bolisani 1996. "Technology transfer to supplier-dominated sectors: Lessonsfrom the diffusion of CAD in the fashion industry." International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 12(4): 421-437.
Scheirer, M. 1983. "Approaches to the study of implementation." IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management. EM-30 (May): 76-82.
Scherer, F. 1982. "Interindustry technology flow in the USA." Research Policy, 11: 227.
Schiff, S. H. 1995. "Future Missions For The National Laboratories." Issues in Science andTechnology, 12(1): 28-30.
138
Schmid, L.C. 1989. A report to the congress and the federal agencies: Activities andaccomplishments of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer Pursuant to theFederal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. A report by Federal Laboratory Consortium forTechnology Transfer.
Schmitt, R.W., 'Technology Export Defining Priorities," Vol. 25, No. 5,September, 1982, pp. 7-8
Schmoch, U. 1993. "Tracing The Knowledge Transfer From Science To Technology AsReflected In Patent Indicators." Scientometrics, 26(1): 193-211.
Schneiderman, R. 1989. "Profitable Technology From Uncle Sam." High Technology Business,9(February): 26-30.
Schoenecker, T.S., D. Myers, and P. Schmidt 1989. "Technology transfer at land-grantuniversities." Technology Transfer. Spring.
Schott, T. 1994. "Collaboration In The Invention Of Technology-- Globalization, Regions, AndCenters." Social Science Research, 23(1): 23-56.
Schouder, W., A. Nashar and V. Padmanabhan. 1990. "A Guide to the Best Technology-TransferPractices." Journal of Technology Transfer 15(1-2): 5.
Schriesheim, A. 1990. "Toward a Golden Age for Technology Transfer." Issues in Science &Technology 7(2): 5258.
Schriesheim, A. 1994. "Argonne: Transfer Of Discoveries To Industry." Forum for AppliedResearch and Public Policy, 9(Spring): 98-100.
Schriesheim, A. 1994. "The Changing Role Of The National Laboratories: Man Bites Dog."Chemtech, 24(February): 33-4.
Schroer, B. J., M. C. Ziemke, P. A. Farrington, R. J. Sampson. 1994. "The Chamber ofCommerce - A New Proactive Factor in Technology Transfer." Journal of Technology Transfer,19 (2): 34.
Schroer, B. J., P. A. Farrington, S. L. Messimer, and J. R. Thornton. 1995. "MeasuringTechnology Transfer Performance." Journal of Technology Transfer, 20(2): 39.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). "Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis ofthe capitalist process." McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). "Capitalism, socialism, and democracy." Harper & Row, New York,NY.
Scientific American 1987. "Technology for sale: The federal technology transfer act of 1986."Scientific American. 256: 62 May.
Seaton, R. A. and M. Cordeyhayes 1993. "The Development And Application Of InteractiveModels Of Industrial-Technology Transfer." Technovation, 13(1): 45-53.
Sedaitis, J. B. 1996. "Waking the sleeping giants: Commercializing state R&D in the UnitedStates and Russia." Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(3): 293-308.
Sen, F. and A.H. Rubenstein 1989. "External technology and in- house R&D's facilitative role."Journal of Product Innovation Management. 6(2).
Senge, P. M. (1990). "The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization."Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
139
Senge, P., and et al. (1999). "The dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum inlearning organizations." Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
Seror, A. C. 1996. "Action research for international information technology transfer: Amethodology and a network model." Technovation, 16(8): 421-429.
Serpa, Roy. 1992. "A Systematic Approach to Technology Transfer." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 17 (4) pp 16.
Sexton, D. L. and S. M. Camp. 1992. "Technology Transfer and Value Creation." Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 17 (2 & 3): 68.
Shampine, A. 1998. "Compensating for information externalities in technology diffusionmodels." American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 80(2): 337-346.
Shapira, P. 1990. "Modern times: learning from state-initiatives in industrial extension andtechnology transfer." Economic Development Quarterly. 4(3).
Shapley, D. 1993. "Clintonizing Science Policy." The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,49(December): 38-43.
Sharif M. N. 1997. "Technology strategy in developing countries: evolving from comparative tocompetitive advantage." International Journal of Technology Management, 14(2-4): 309-343.
Sharp, R. 1984. "Systems Approach To Appropriate Technology Transfer"(Book Review). NewScientist, 102 (April 26): 46.
Shaw, B.T. 1989. "In support of strategies for technology assistance programs: Assisting smalland medium sized manufacturers." Economic Development Review. 7 (1).
Sheen, M. 1992. "Barriers to Scientific and Technical Knowledge Acquisition in IndustrialR&D." R&D Management, 22(2): 135.
Sherman, W. R. & W. G. Tymon. 1992. "The Unfulfilled Promise of an Envisioned Jewel - AnAttempt to Transfer Technology Out of the Splintering Soviet Union." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 17(4): 20.
Shi, X. P. 1995. "Patent Licensing For Technology-Transfer - An Integrated Structural ModelFor Research." International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7-8): 921-940.
Shim, S. J. (1998). Characteristics and adoption of generic financial expert systems: A case studyof failure. Journal of Information Technology Management, 9(3), 43-51.
Sigurdson, J. 1992. "Internationalising research and development in Japan." Science & PublicPolicy, 19(3): 134.
Silberman, J. M., C. Weiss and M. Dutz 1996. "Marshall Plan Productivity Assistance: A uniqueprogram of mass technology transfer and a precedent for the former Soviet Union."Technological Society. 18(4): 443-460.
Silva, J., & Backhouse, J. (1997). Becoming part of the furniture: The institutionalization ofinformation systems. In "Information systems and qualitative research (Proceedings of the IFIPTC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, May31- June 3, 1997, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA)" (A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I.DeGross, Eds.), Chap. 20, pp. 389-414. Chapman & Hall, London.
Simon, T. W. and A. E. Wiens 1993. "Narratives Of Technology- Transfer." Bulletin Of ScienceTechnology & Society, 13(2): 63- 66.
140
Singh, K. 1990. "Technology Development--A Holistic Perspective Involving Different NationalCommunities." International Social Science Journal, 42(November): 593-604.
Sink, C. H. & K. Easley. 1994. "The Basis for US Department of Energy Technology Transfer inthe 1990s." Journal of Technology Transfer, 19 (2): 52.
Sirilli, G. 1992. "Technological balance of payments as an indicator of technology transfer."Science & Public Policy, 19 (6): 347.
Sirleu, N.A. 1978. "Government Aid for the Development of Innovative Technology: Lessonsfrom the French," Research Policy, 7: 176-196.
Skolnikoff, E. B. 1967. Science, Technology and American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Skolnikoff, E. B. 1993. "New international trends affecting science and technology." Science &Public Policy, 20 (2): 115.
Skolnikoff, E. B. 1993. The Elusive Transformation: Science, Technology, And The EvolutionOf International Relations. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Skolnikoff, E. B. 1995. "Evolving US science and technology policy in a changing internationalenvironment." Science & Public Policy, 22 (2): 74.
Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades 1996. "The Emergence Of A Competitiveness Research-And-Development Policy Coalition And The Commercialization Of Academic Science AndTechnology." Science Technology & Human Values, 21 (3): 303-339.
Slowinski, Gene, Susan A. Atanton, John C. Tao, Wayne Miller, Donald P. McConnell,"Acquiring External Technology." Vol. 43, No.5, September-October, 2000, pp. 29.
Smilor, R and D Gibson. 1991. "Accelerating Technology Transfer in R&D Consortia."Research Technology Management, 34(I): 44.
Smilor, R. W., G. B. Dietrich and D. V. Gibson 1993. "The Entrepreneurial University: The RoleOf Higher Education In The United States In Technology Commercialization And EconomicDevelopment." International Social Science Journal, 45(February): 1-11.
Smilor, R.W. 1987. "Commercializing Technology Through New Business Incubators."Research Management, 30(5): 36.
Smith, D. E. 1992. "Expert Systems for Medical Diagnosis - A Study in Technology Transfer."Journal of Technology Transfer, 17(4): 45.
Smith, R.W. 1987. "Commercializing Technology Through New Business Incubators." ResearchManagement, 30(5): 36.
Soderstrom, J. and B. Winchell. 1986. "Patent Policy Changes Stimulating CommercialApplication of Federal R&D." Research Management, 29(3): 35-39.
Souder W. E., N. C. Schoening and M. S. Spann 1996. "Commercial spin-offs from governmentlaboratories and regional economic development: The Huntsville, Alabama story." Journal OfScientific & Industrial Research, 55(4): 223-233 APR 1996
Souder, W. E., A. S. Nashar, & V. Padmanabhan. 1990. "A Guide To the Best Technology-Transfer Practices." Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(1 & 2): 5.
141
Souder, W.E. and V. Padmanabhan 1989. "Transferring new technologies from R&D tomanufacturing." Research-Technology Management. 32(5) pp. 38-43.
Southon F. C. G., C. Sauer C, and C. Dampney 1997. "Information technology in complex healthservices: Organizational impediments to successful technology transfer and diffusion." JournalOf The American Medical Informatics Association, 4(2): 112-124.
Spann, M. S., M. Adams and W. E. Souder 1995. "Measures Of Technology-TransferEffectiveness--Key Dimensions And Differences In Their Use By Sponsors, Developers AndAdopters." IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 42(1): 19-29.
Spilka, R. (1995, August). Communicating across organizational boundaries: A challenge forworkplace professionals. Technical Communication, 42(3), 436.
Spivey, W. A., J. M. Munson, W. T. Flannery. 1994. "Understanding the Environs that ImpactTechnology Transfer and Transition." Journal of Technology Transfer, 19(2): 63.
Spivey, W. A., Munson, J, Michael, Flannery, William T. 1990. "Interest in Technology Transferacross Academic Disciplines - Publication Trends, 1981 thru 1989." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 15(3): 13.
Starr, C. 1985. "Industrial Cooperation in R&D." Research Management, 28(5):13-16.
Steele, L.W., "Barriers to International Technology Transfer," Vol. 17, No. 1, January, 1974, pp.17-21.
Stein, B. A., and Kanter, R. M. (1993, November). Why good people do bad things: Aretrospective on the Hubble fiasco. The Academy of Management Executive, 7(4), 58.
Stein, B. A., and Kanter, R. M. (1993, Winter). Leadership for change: The rest of the story.Frontiers of Health Services Management, 10 (2 Page: 28).
Stevens, G. A, and J. Burley, May-June 1997, “3000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success:Significant odds facing would-be innovators are confirmed by an analysis of consistent data fromnew product development, patenting activity and venture capital experience.” Research-Technology Management, pp. 16-27.
Stevens, J. H., L. B. Swim, J. D. Harmon. 1991. "Finance, Technology Transfer, and NationalSecurity - A Preliminary Survey." Journal of Technology Transfer, 16(3): 38.
Stevenson-Wyder Technological Innovation Act 1980. Public Law 96-480, Title 15, Section3701-3714.
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, P.L. 96-517, United States Code, Title15, Section 3701-3714.
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act, 1984.
Stewart, C. T. Technology transfer and human factors. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987.
Stewart, J. D., J. R. Richburg and D. L. Goetsch 1995. "Technology Transfer From The BottomUp." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 10(Winter): 40-3.
Stobaugh, R. and Well Jr., L.T. (eds) 1984. Technology crossing borders. (Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.)
Storper, M. 1995. "Regional Technology Coalitions: An Essential Dimension of NationalTechnology Policy." Research Policy, 24(6): 895-913.
142
Supapol, A. B. 1990. "The commercialization of government- sponsored technologies: Canadianevidence." Research Policy, 19: 369-378.
Swanson, D. H. 1995. "Determining the Government's Responsibilities in Technology." Journalof Technology Transfer, 20(2): 3.
Swanson, E. B. (1988). "Information system implementation: Bridging the gap between designand utilization." Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Swanson, E. B. (1994, September). Information systems innovation among organizations.Management Science, 40(9): 1069-1092.
Swanson, E. B., and Ramiller, N. C. (1997, September-October). The organizing vision ininfromation systems innovation. Organization Science, 8(5): 458-474.
Swyt, D. 1988. "Transferring NBS technology to small manufacturers through state and localcenters." Technology Transfer. 7-13.
Szakonyi, Robert, "101 Tips for Managing R&D More Effectively," Vol. 33, No. 4,July-August,1990, pp. 31-36; November-December, 1990, pp. 41-46
T
2002 Conference Proceedings of the National Energy Technology Laboratory “TechnologyPartnerships 2002 Best Practices” Conference, June 11-13, 2002.(http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/transpartner/trans02.html#Papers)
Tait, P., and Vessey, I. (1988, March). The effect of use involvement on system success: Acontingency approach. MIS Quarterly, 91-108.
Talaysum, A.T., "Understanding the Diffusion Process for Technology Intensive Products," Vol.28, No. 4, July-August, 1985, pp. 22-26
Tann, J. 1996. "Technology transfer - Getting from here to there: From 'know how' to 'how to'."Interdisciplinary Science Review 21(3): 215-220.
Tassey, Gregory, 2000, “Standardization in Technology-Based Markets,” Research Policy, 29,587-602.
Tech Transfer Bill Approved." 1996. Issues in Science and Technology, 12(Spring): 27-8.
Technology and Information Policy Program, 1985. Technology and knowledge transfer: A casestudy of Brookhaven National Laboratory. Working Paper (85-023), Technology andInformation Policy Program.
Technology Transfer by Stock Exchanges." 1995. Nature, 375(June 15): 521-2.
Teece, D.J. 1977. "Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferringtechnological know-how." The Economic Journal. June: 242-261.
Tenkasi, R. V. & S. A. Mohrman 1995. "Technology Transfer as Collaborative Learning." NIDAResearch Monograph, 155: 147.
Thursby, Jerry G. and Marie C. Thursby, 2002. “Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing,” unpublished paper, October.
Thursby, Jerry G. and Marie C. Thursby, 2002. “Buyer and seller views of university/industrylicensing,” unpublished paper, October.
143
Thursby, Jerry G. and Marie C. Thursby, 2002. “University licensing under Bayh-Dole: What arethe issues and evidence?,” Paper prepared for the President’s Council of Advisors on Scienceand Technology, February.
Thursby, Jerry G. and Marie C. Thursby, 2002. “Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources ofgrowth in university licensing,” Management Science, 48(1), January, pp 90-104.
Thursby, Jerry G., Richard Jensen and Marie C. Thursby, 2001. “Objectives, characteristics andoutcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities,” Journal of TechnologyTransfer, vol. 26, pp 59-72.
Tilton, J. 1971. International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semi-Conductors.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Tornatzky, L. G. 1995. "Technology Policy and Programs at a Crossroads." Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 20(1): 4.
Tornatzky, L. G., and Fleischer, M. (1990). "The processes of technological innovation."Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Tornatzky, L. G., and Klein, K. J. (1982, February). Innovation characteristics and innovation-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,EM-29(1), 28-45.
Tornatzky, L. G., M. Fleischer, and R. Drazin 1991. "The Processes of TechnologicalInnovation." Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(1 & 2): 45.
Tornatzky, Louis G, Paul G. Waugman, and Denis O. Gray, 2002. Innovation U.: NewUniversity Roles in a Knowledge Economy, Southern Growth Policies Board, Research Triangle,North Carolina.
Triana, E. 1989. "Technology parks and technology transfer." International Journal ofTechnology Management. 4(4-5): 431-40.
Trott, P. and M. Cordeyhayes,1996. "Developing A Receptive R-And- D Environment ForInward Technology Transfer--A Case-Study Of The Chemical-Industry." R&D Management,26(1): 83-92.
Trott, P., M. Cordeyhayes and R. A. Seaton 1995. "Inward Technology-Transfer As AnInteractive Process." Technovation, 15(1): 25-43.
Tsang, E. 1994. "Strategies For Transferring Technology To China." Long Range Planning,27(3): 98-107.
Turpin, T., S. Garrettjones and N. Rankin 1996. "Bricoleurs And Boundary Riders--ManagingBasic Research And Innovation Knowledge Networks." R&D Management, 26(3): 267-282.
Tushman, & Scanlan, T. 1981. "Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in informationtransfer and their antecedents." Academy of Management Journal. 24: 289-305.
Tushman, M. L., and Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizationalenvironments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.
Tushman, M. L., and Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technologicalchange: Toward a sociology of technological evolution. Organizational Behavior, 14, 311-347.
Tushman, M., & Scanlan, T. 1981 "Characteristics and external orientations of boundaryspanning individuals." Academy of Management. 24: 83-98.
144
Tyre, M. J., and Orlikowski, W. J. (1994, July). The myth of continuous improvement.Chemtech, 24, 12-19.
U
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (April, 1986). “Research Funding as anInvestment: Can We Measure the Returns? -- A Technical Memorandum,” Washington, DC,OTA-TM-SET-36.
U.S. Department of Commerce (September, 2002). “Summary Report on Federal LaboratoryTechnology Transfer – Agency Approaches; FY 2001 Activity Metrics and outcomes,”Washington, DC.
Uniform Patent Procedures Act of 1983. 1984. Public Law 98-620 enacted November 8, 1984.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Agricultural Research and TechnologyTransfer Policies for the 1990's, OTA-F- 447. (Washington, DC: USGPO).
US Congress. 1984. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980. United States Code,Title 15, Section 3701-3714: 96-517. (Washington, DC: USGPO).
US Congress. 1986. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. 99th Congress, 2nd Session(Washington, DC: USGPO).
US General Accounting Office. 1983. The Federal Role in Fostering University-IndustryCooperation. (Washington, DC: USGPO).
US General Accounting Office. 1989. Technology transfer: Implementation status of the federaltechnology transfer act of 1986.
Utterback, J. 1979. "Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology." Science, 183 (15February): 620-626.
V
Van Dierdonck, R., K. Debackere and M. Rappa. 1991. "An Assessment of Science Parks:Towards a Better Understanding of their Role in the Diffusion of Technological Knowledge."R&D Management, 21(2): 109.
Varzaly, L., & Elashmawi.F. 1984. "Technology utilization: The new corporate challenge."Journal of Technology Transfer. 9: 61- 69.
Venanzi, D. 1996. "A new approach to the identification and selection of internationaltechnology transfer modes: Logical framework and empirical evidence." Technovation, 16(6):287-300.
Venkatesh, V., Smith, R. H., and Morris, M. G. (2000, March). Why don't men ever stop to askfor directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usagebehavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 115-18+131-6.
Verma, S. K. 1996. "TRIPS - Development and transfer of technology." lie-International ReviewOf Industrial Property And Copyright Law, 27(3): 331-364.
Verspagen, B. 1997. "Estimating international technology spillovers using technology flowmatrices." Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv-Review Of World Economics, 133(2): 226-248.
Vester, John, Lessons Learned About Integrating Acquisitions., Vol. 45, No. 3,May-June, 2002,pp. 33-41.
145
Vickery, G. 1986. "International flows of technology: Recent trends and developments." STIReview, 1: 47-83.
Vickery, G. 1987. "Diffusing new technologies: microelectronics." STI Review. (Sept): 41-80.
Vonortas, Nicholas S. (2002) “Partnerships and Networking in Science and Technology forDevelopment,” Technology for Development Paper Series, United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development, Geneva: UNCTAD, 2002 (UNCTAD/ITE/TEB/11).
Vontunzelmann, G. N. 1994. "Technology-Transfer And Scandinavian Industrialization -Bruland. K." Research Policy, 23(3): 352-353.
W
Wagner, C. K. 1998. "Biotechnology in Mexico: placing science the service of business."Technology in Society, 20(1): 61-73.
Wartik, S., and Davis, T. (1999, April). A phased reuse adoption model. Journal of Systems &Software, 46(1), 13-23.
Watkins, C. 1985. "Technology transfer from university research in regional developmentstrategies.' Journal of Technology Transfer, 10: 51-64.
Watkins, T. 1990. "Beyond Guns and Butter: Managing Dual-Use Technologies." Technovation,10(6): 389.
Wei, L. 1995. "International Technology-Transfer And Development Of TechnologicalCapabilities - A Theoretical Framework." Technology in Society, 17(1): 103-120.
Weick, K. (1979). "The social psychology of organizing." (2nd ed.) Wiley, New York.
Weijo, M.O. 1987. "Strategies for promoting technology transfer to the private sector." Journalof Technology Transfer. 11(2).
Werner, J. and J. Bremer. 1991. "Hard Lessons in Cooperative Research." Issues in Science &Technology, 7(3): 44-49.
Werner, Jerry, "Technology Transfer in Consortia," Research-Technology Management. Vol. 35,No. 3, May-June, 1992, pp. 38-43
Westmacott, T.I., "Culture, Capital, and Communications," Vol. 42, No. 1,January-February,1999, pp. 48
White House Science Council. 1983. Report of the Federal Laboratory Review Panel: PackardReport. (Washington, DC: USGPO).
White, William, "Effective Transfer of Technology from Research to Development," Research-Technology Management. Vol. 20, No. 3, May, 1977, pp. 30-34
Wible, J. R. 1995. "The Economic-Organization Of Science, The Firm, And The Marketplace."Philosophy Of The Social Sciences, 25(1): 35-68.
Wigand, R. and G. Frankwick 1989. "Interorganizational communication and technologytransfer: industry-government- university linkages." International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 4(1): 63-76.
Wilde, D. U. & N. R. Cooper 1990. "Federal Laboratories & American Industry - FuelingInnovation." Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(1 & 2)1/2: 47.
146
Williams, L. R., and Rao, K. (1997). Information technology adoption: Using classical adoptionmodels to predict AEI software implementations. Journal of Business Logistics, 18(2), 43-54.
Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries, R. (2000, July/August).Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19-25.
Williams, R. S., Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommitteeon Science, Technology, and Space, post-Hearing questions for Dr. R. Stanley Williams, fromSenator Ron Wyden, Hearing on Nanotechnology, Washington, D.C., September 17, 2002.
Winebrake, J. J. 1992. "A Study of Technology-Transfer Mechanisms for Federally FundedR&D." Journal of Technology Transfer, 17 (4): 54.
Winner. L. 1980. "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Daedalus, 109.
Winpisinger, W.W., "The Case Against Exporting U.S. Technology," Research-TechnologyManagement. Vol. 21, No.2, March, 1978, pp. 19-21.
Winter, M. 1997. "New policies and new skills: Agricultural change and technology transfer."Sociologia Ruralis, 37(3): 363.
Wolek, F. W. 1992. "Rip-off Transfers - Source of Social Progress." Journal of TechnologyTransfer, 17 (2 & 3): 51.
Wolfe, R. A. (1994, May). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested researchdirections. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-431.
Wolff, M.F. 1989. "Technology transfer: A GM manager's strategy. Research-TechnologyManagement. 32(5).
Wolff, M.F., "Plugging Into Overseas Technology," Research-Technology Management. Vol.31, No. 2, March-April, 1988, pp.9-11.
Wolff, M.F., "Plugging Into Overseas Technology: 1990," Research-Technology Management.Vol. 33, No. 2, March-April, 1990, pp. 8-10.
Wolff, M.F., "Scouting for Technology," Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April, 1992, pp. 10-12
Wood S. C. and G. S. Brown 1998. "Commercializing nascent technology: The case of laserdiodes at Sony." Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2): 167-183.
Woods, D. L. 1990. "American Libraries and Domestic Technology Transfer. Science &Technology Libraries, 11(2): 39.
Wright, D. J. 1993. "International Technology-Transfer With An Information Asymmetry AndEndogenous Research-And-Development." Journal of International Economics. 35(1-2): 47-67.
Wyckoff, A. and L. Tornatzky 1988. "State-level efforts to transfer Manufacturing technology: asurvey of programs and practices." Management Science, 14: 469-481.
Y
Yadav, S. B., Shaw, N. G., Webb, L., and Sutcu, C. (2001, March). Comments on 'Factors thatimpact implementing a system development methodology'. IEEE Transactions on SoftwareEngineering, 27(3), 279-281.
Yang, H.-L. (1999). Adoption and implementation of CASE tools in Taiwan. Information &Management, 35(2), 89-112.
147
Yin, J Z. 1992. "Technological Capabilities as Determinants of the Success of TechnologyTransfer Projects." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 42(1): 17-30. Management,39(5): 26-30.
Yong, S. and R. Gaertner 1994. "Technology Transfer From University To Industry: A Large-Scale Experiment With Technology Development And Commercialization (Part Of ASymposium On - Technology Transfer And Public Policy). Policy Studies Journal, 22 (2): 384-99.
Yoshikawa, A. 1988. "Technology transfer and national science policy: biotechnology policy inJapan." International Journal of Technology Management, 3 (6): 735-44.
Yoshikawa, A. 1990. "Japanese Biotechnology - Government, Corporations, and TechnologyTransfer." Journal of Technology Transfer, 15, (1 & 2): 53.
Yoxen, E. J. 1984. "Scepticism about the Centrality of Technology Transfer." Social Studies ofScience, 14(2).
Yu H. Y. and K. S. Yeh 1996. "Technology transfer in Taiwan's information industry: Thelessons." Research Technology
Yuan, J. D. 1996. "United States technology transfer policy toward China: Post-Cold Warobjectives and strategies." International Journal, 51(2): 314-338.
Z
Zelkowitz, M. V. (1996, August). Software engineering technology infusion within NASA. IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 43(3), 250-61.
Zelkowitz, Marvin V., 1995, “Assessing software engineering technology transfer withinNASA,” NASA technical report NASA-RPT-003095. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Washington, DC.
Zelkowitz, Marvin V., Dolores Wallace and David Binkley, 1998, “Understanding the cultureclash in software engineering technology transfer, “ University of Maryland Computer ScienceDepartment technical report, 2 June.
Zhao, L. M. 1997. "International technology-transfer negotiations: towards a win-win strategy."International Journal of Technology Management, 14(2-4): 287-296.
Zhao, L. M. and A. Reisman 1992. "Toward Meta Research On Technology-Transfer." IEEETransactions On Engineering Management, 39(1): 13-21.
Zigurs, I., DeSanctis, G., and Billingsley, J. (1991, Spring). Adoption patterns and attitudinaldevelopment in computer-supported meetings: An exploratory study with SAMM. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 7(4), 51-70.
Zmud, R. W. (1982, December). Diffusion of modern software practices: Influence ofcentralization and formalization. Management Science, 28(12), 1421-1431.
Zmud, R. W. (1983, June). The effectiveness of external information channels in facilitatinginnovation within software development groups. MIS Quarterly, 16, 43-58.
Zmud, R. W. (1984, June). An examination of "push-pull" theory applied to process innovationin knowledge work. Management Science, 30(6), 727-738.
CF-187-OSTP
